The Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear cases involving ‘Choose Life’ license plates in Illinois, a church property dispute in California, and an appeal to keep sexual abuse case documents sealed in Connecticut.

The court rejected a free-speech claim from Choose Life Illinois Inc., which gathered more than 25,000 signatures from people who wanted a "Choose Life" plate.

State officials refused to create the plate, saying the state did not want to appear to be taking a position on abortion.
According to the Tribune, 24 states offer "Choose Life" license plates, and there are efforts to gain approval in 14 more states.

The high court also declined to hear an appeal from St. James Anglican Church, which split from the Episcopal Church in 2004 and is now aligned with with the conservative Anglican Church of North America. California's Supreme Court had ruled that St. James could not take its property.

Finally, the court rejected a request by a Connecticut diocese to delay the release of court documents related to sexually abusive clergy. Four newspapers sued for access to court records and depositions, which Connecticut courts have ruled should be open to the public. The diocese released a statement, saying the court order threatens all churches' First Amendment rights.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Salazar v. Buono regarding a cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 5, 2009 | Comments (0)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that documents from lawsuits against six Roman Catholic priests for alleged sexual abuse must be unsealed, according to the Associated Press.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg denied the Connecticut diocese's request to keep the seal until the full court decides whether to review the case. The diocese wrote that it intends to ask the full U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, stating that "granting access to such documents would intrude upon the private affairs of citizens, with the potential to inflict great harm and injustice."

The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001, and an attorney representing The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post requested to see the documents. Here's more from the Hartford Courant.

In its motion asking the high court to keep the stay in place, the diocese says there is a good chance the high court will take up the diocese's case because of two issues: the state Supreme Court's definition of what constitutes a legal document; and the church's contention that its First Amendment rights would be violated by the unsealing of documents that church officials produced with the understanding that they would be sealed forever.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 25, 2009 | Comments (7)

Former CT associate editor Edward Gilbreath has interviewed former CT columnist (and novelist and Yale Law professor) Stephen Carter over at UrbanFaith.com. They discuss Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and then briefly touch on race relations, education reform, and, oh yes, Carter's new novel, Jericho's Fall.

A sample: Gilbreath asks Carter "as a law expert and an African-American" what he thinks of President Obama using the criterion of "empathy" in selecting a nominee. Here is Carter's response:

I respectfully disagree with President Obama that "empathy" is an important characteristic in a judge. Had the President said what I think he probably meant -- "patience" or "a willingness to listen and learn" -- I would have agreed. Judge Sotomayor has both in spades. But "empathy" is an empty standard. For example, a judge who always rules in favor of investment banks might have empathy for Wall Streeters; and, during the civil rights era, there were plenty of Southern apologists who described the working-class whites of the South as the truly oppressed in America.

Carter, who was a law school classmate of Sotomayor's, has a great deal of respect for her, and wishes that our confirmation process would not grab occasional phrases to use as "cudgels," but would actually delve into the nominee's opinions.

Read the rest of the interview here.

Read past Stephen Carter columns for CT here.

Posted by David Neff at July 21, 2009 | Comments (2)

Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor began today as the Supreme Court nominee tried to preempt some of her critics.

"The task of a judge is not to make law," she said in her opening statement. "It is to apply law."

Norma McCorvey, known as "Jane Roe" during the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion, was arrested after she yelled that Sotomayor was "wrong" during Sen. Al Franken's opening statement.

McCorvey became pro-life and converted to Catholicism after she befriended with one of an Operation Rescue leader.

Richard Land and other conservatives are concerned that Sotomayor would be an activist judge.

"The bottom line is that Sonia Sotomayor is an unpredictable wildcard," Land said in a statement today. "Across the issues her record is either far too thin or hidden behind non-published orders and per curium opinions. Simply put, placing Sonia Sotomayor on the highest court in the land jeopardizes our nation's commitment to equal treatment under the law."

Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, plans to testify on Sotomayor's connection to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed several briefs related to abortion while she was on its governing board.

"Her PRLDEF record proves that she is an abortion advocate," Yoest said in a statement. "That record includes opposition to parental notification, opposition to informed consent, opposition to bans on partial-birth abortion and support for taxpayer-funded abortions."

Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs, who is back to blogging, highlighted the religious liberty mentions in the opening statements.

Here's a section from Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD):

There were neighborhoods that my parents warned me to avoid for fear of my safety because I was Jewish. The local movie theater denied admission to African Americans.

Community swimming pools had signs that said "No Jews, No Blacks Allowed." Even Baltimore's amusement parks and sports clubs were segregated by race. Then came Brown vs. Board of Education, and, suddenly, my universe and community were changed forever.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at July 13, 2009 | Comments (7)

The former Christianity Today columnist, now writing for The Daily Beast, writes, "I have been rooting for [Sonia Sotomayor] all along. Not only because I know her, but because everything I know about her suggests that she will be a fantastic justice. ... I suppose the left will not be entirely happy with the president’s choice, and the right, not entirely unhappy."

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (2)

More reactions to Obama's Supreme Court nominee continue to come in from pro-life groups. So far all include a reference to Sotomayor's "where policy is made" comment, and none include a reference to her decisions related to abortion.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice calls the Sotomayor nomination "a very aggressive decision that will trigger a national debate on the issue of judicial activism."

Mario Diaz, Policy Director for Legal Issues for Concerned Women for America, called Sotomayor's "policy is made" statement "a very dangerous way of looking at the role of a judge for those of us who value our freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution."

Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright is more troubled by a 2001 speech Sotomayor made at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The comment "reveal[s] her immodest bias," Wright said.

The full speech is worth reading, not least because Sotomayor makes repeated reference to Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby by Yale Law School professor (and former CT columnist) Stephen Carter.

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group," she wrote. She continued:

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. ...

I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

Worth noting: Before today's news, LifeNews called Sotomayor "The only potential Supreme Court justice who may provide hope for pro-life advocates."

Update: Be sure to read LifeSite's Steven Ertelt explaining the characterization in the comments section, below.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

Expect to see a lot less discussion of Sotomayor's two abortion-related decisions than interpretation of this quote, said in an ambiguously humorous context:

All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.

Indeed, Americans United for Life's first press release on Sotomayor says nothing about Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush or Amnesty America v. West Hartford. Instead, the group says:

For all the President's talk of finding "common ground,' this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

In 1989, members of Amnesty America entered an abortion clinic in West Hartford, Connecticut, chained themselves together, and blocked the entrance. When police arrived, the protesters used passive resistance to continue their protest (among their techniques: covering their hands in maple syrup to make handcuffs less useful).

The police dragged the protesters out anyway, and Amnesty America members sued, saying several of them suffered lasting physical damage from the police officers' actions (among the claims: an officer rammed a protester's head into a wall).

A district court issued a summary judgment for the town of West Hartford, but Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and sent it back to the lower court for a jury trial.

"It is entirely possible that a reasonable jury would find, as the district court intimated, that the police officers' use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances and the plaintiffs' resistance techniques," Sotomayor wrote. "Because a reasonable jury could also find that the officers gratuitously inflicted pain in a manner that was not a reasonable response to the circumstances, however, the determination as to the objective reasonableness of the force used must be made by a jury following a trial."

Sotomayor also warned the group that its lawyer was unprofessional. He "has hardly acted as an effective advocate for his clients by presenting briefs so haphazardly prepared that they contain almost no legal argument," she wrote. His behavior was so bad, she wrote that, "we would be within our discretion to summarily dismiss this appeal. We opt, however, to consider the merits of this appeal because plaintiffs' claims are substantial enough to merit a trial, and declining to consider this appeal would unfairly penalize plaintiffs for Williams's failings as an advocate."

Pro-lifers seem unimpressed by the decision. "Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates," says a briefing at LifeNews.com. Eh? It's hard to see the decision as anything but a good thing for this particular pro-life group. The question is more about how large the decision's implications are.

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (2)

Shortly after President George W. Bush reinstituted the Mexico City Policy (which bars government funds to groups that support or perform abortion), the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy sued.

The pro-choice group's argument was that the Mexico City Policy unconstitutionally violated rights of speech (since it couldn't "actively promote" abortion) and association (it couldn't work with abortion rights advocacy groups overseas) as well as the constitution's Equal Protection Clause (it wasn't on "equal footing" with prolife groups in competing for funds).

When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (whom President Obama this morning nominated to the Supreme Court) ruled against the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.

"The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds," Sotomayor wrote.

Does that mean she's pro-life? No. It means she had read Rust v. Sullivan, the 1991 Supreme Court's decision that said Congress could prohibit federal funds for "programs where abortion is a method of family planning."

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 26, 2009 | Comments (0)

President Obama will choose U.S. Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court today, according to an AP report.

Sotomayor (SUHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') will take retiring Justice David Souter's place if she is approved by the Senate. She would be the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

According to the New York Times Caucus blog, Obama's short list included Federal Appeals Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Obama will make the announcement at 10:15 Eastern. You can watch live on the White House website. Check back here for updates.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was asked how his religious faith influenced his work on the court during a dinner honoring winners of a high school essay contest.

"I think that it really gives content to the oath that you took," Justice Thomas said. "You say, ?So help me God.' "

"There are some cases that will drive you to your knees," he added. "In those moments you ask for strength and wisdom to have the right answer and the courage to stand up for it. Beyond that, it would be illegitimate, I think, and a violation of my oath to incorporate my religious beliefs into the decision-making process."

(h/t Howard M. Friedman)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 21, 2009 | Comments (8)

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a high school football coach who was banned from bowing his head during student-led team prayers.

Without comment Monday, the nation's highest court ended Coach Marcus Borden's efforts to overturn a township decision that as a public employee, Borden cannot mix religion with his work as a coach.

The high court's decision leaves intact a federal appeals court's April decision that Borden's desire to bow his head and take a knee during team prayer is an endorsement of religious activity at a public school.

Neither Borden, who has been the football coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, nor his attorney, Ronald Riccio, could be reached for comment.

Borden has been fighting for the right to bow and kneel in prayer with his team since November 2005, when he filed a federal lawsuit arguing the school district's regulations were overly broad. He won a U.S. District Court ruling in July 2006 in which a judge decided those rules were unconstitutional, but that decision was reversed at the appellate level.

Riccio asked the Supreme Court in October to review the appeals court decision, arguing then that Borden's case was of national importance because "it addresses what public school educators are permitted to say and do when public school students engage in religious
activities in their presence."

Richard Katskee, an attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the board of education in court, said in a prepared statement that "children have a clear right to attend public schools without religious pressures being brought to bear by
school personnel."

"Coach Borden was out of bounds, and the courts were right to blow the whistle," Katskee said. "I hope that other coaches and school personnel learn a lesson from this."

Todd Simmens, president of the East Brunswick Board of Education, in the same statement said "public school officials simply may not engage with students in religious activity."

"The board of education and district officials have, throughout this case, made certain no school employee supervises or otherwise participates in any type of prayer with our students," Simmens said. "Needless to say, the board is pleased that, in this case, the courts reaffirmed this long-standing constitutional principle."

The school district said Borden had a long history of leading prayers before he was ordered to stop after complaints from some parents. Borden resigned as coach in protest of the school board ruling in 2005, but rescinded the resignation within a week and hired Riccio to represent him in his quest to coach the team the way he had for more than two decades.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 3, 2009 | Comments (13)

The free speech rights of a Montana church were violated when it was told to register as a political committee after hosting an anti-gay marriage event in 2004, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in East Helena, Mont., overturned a lower court decision.

The church participated in a "Battle for Marriage" satellite simulcast in 2004 and distributed petitions in support of a successful initiative to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in Montana's constitution.

"We conclude that, by applying its disclosure provisions to the church's (minor) in-kind contributions in the context of a state ballot initiative, the commission violated the church's First Amendment rights," wrote Judge William C. Canby Jr.

In a concurring opinion, Judge John T. Noonan wrote that "An unregulated, unregistered press is important to our democracy. So are unregulated, unregistered churches."

Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund who
represented the church, welcomed the decision.

"Churches shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs," he said.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 26, 2009 | Comments (1)

More than 180 House members sent a letter to House Democratic leaders on Wednesday , calling for upcoming spending bills to maintain longstanding anti-abortion provisions.

"These measures ... reflect the moral concerns of many Americans who do not wish to see their tax dollars used for any organization that provides abortion services," said the letter.

The letter asks House Democratic leaders to maintain provisions such as the Hyde Amendment, in effect since 1976, which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in limited cases.

Often called "pro-life riders," these provisions are usually included in spending bills by congressional committees.

"We believe a failure to include all of the current policies with regard to the right to life will mark a radical departure from a policy a majority of Americans support," the letter said.

Most of the letter's signees are Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 26, 2009 | Comments (2)

The Supreme Court decided Monday (Feb. 23) to consider a case about a controversial eight-foot cross that was erected as a war memorial on federal property in California.

The legal battle surrounding the memorial in the Mohave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, Calif., has pitted veterans groups against advocates for church-state separation.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross and a 2004 congressional statute designed to maintain its placement is unconstitutional.

"It is bad enough to say that the veterans' memorial is unconstitutional, but it is outrageous to say that the government cannot give the monument back to the people who spilled their blood and put it there in the first place," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and attorney for the VFW and other veterans
groups, which sought the high court's review of the case.

After the National Park Service denied a request to erect a Buddhist shrine in the preserve, a visitor to the preserve sued in 2001 because the property was not "open to groups and individuals to erect other free-standing, permanent displays."

The American Civil Liberties Union has represented that visitor, Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at the preserve.

"The appeals court rightly found that the statute did not solve the Establishment Clause problem created by a large cross in the midst of a National Preserve," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "In fact, it compounded the problem by continuing to favor this one religious symbol that had already been granted unique access to federal property."

The Supreme Court is already mulling another case involving government property and religious symbols. It heard arguments in the fall about whether a small Utah religious sect should be permitted to erect a monument of its beliefs in a city park that already includes a Ten Commandments monument.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 24, 2009 | Comments (12)