{"id":268,"date":"2010-03-30T12:20:44","date_gmt":"2010-03-30T12:20:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html"},"modified":"2010-03-30T12:20:44","modified_gmt":"2010-03-30T12:20:44","slug":"supreme-court-protecting-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, I do believe the constitutional challenges against the health care law will succeed.  <\/span>Specifically, in my view, it will be the Commerce Clause violation that ultimately will result in this law being declared unconstitutional.  <\/span>It also seems very likely that this case will wind through the legal process and end up at the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is a case before the Supreme Court currently that I want to focus on for a moment.  <\/span>It’s a religion case and as you know there haven’t been many at the high court lately.  <\/span>This case is certainly being watched closely and will have significant ramifications.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez<\/span><\/em> and the central issue before the court involves the protection of the constitutional rights of religious groups to set membership and leadership criteria according to the dictates of their religious beliefs.  <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The case involves a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit siding with the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Hastings denied official recognition to a student group – the Christian Legal Society (CLS) – after CLS said it could not abide by the school’s non-discrimination policy. That policy forbids student groups from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, “religion.” CLS says its religious beliefs prevent non-Christians from exercising control over the group by becoming voting members or serving in leadership positions.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that’s the key issue before the court.<\/span><\/p>\n

Barry, it is fundamental to religious freedom that religious groups are free to define their own mission, select their own leaders and determine their own membership criteria. <\/span><\/p>\n

The First Amendment protections afforded to religious organizations are clear.  The appeals court decision discriminates against religion, undermines Supreme Court precedent, and injects the government into an area that the Constitution forbids.<\/span><\/p>\n

That’s exactly why we filed an amicus brief <\/a>in this case – representing a number of Christian leaders and organizations active on college and university campuses. <\/span><\/p>\n

In our friend-of-the-court brief, we contend that religious groups are constitutionally protected in following their religious beliefs.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Religious groups by their nature embrace religious principles and, as a matter of organizational identity and coherence, will normally require adherence to such principles as a criterion for membership and certainly for leadership,” the brief asserts.  “This is not ‘discrimination’ but rather part and parcel of what defines them as religious groups.  Wooden application of religious ‘non-discrimination’ policies therefore forces religious groups to choose between their religious identity and access to the forum.  That ‘choice’ is an unconstitutional one between yielding to government intermeddling and no access at all.  Far from a permissible condition on benefits, this is a choice that the government, under the Religion Clauses, has no business imposing on religious groups.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Our legal argument is clear:  the appeals court decision violates the constitutional protections afforded to religious groups.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our brief states:  “A policy of non-discrimination by the government <\/span><\/em>promotes a wholesome neutrality.  But when the government extends that same policy to private religious groups <\/span><\/em>and directs them not to discriminate on religious grounds, it strays into forbidden territory.  Such a policy inevitably undermines the Court’s equal access cases, discriminates against religion, and injects the government into matters–the leadership and membership criteria of religious groups–that the Religion Clauses put squarely out of bounds.”<\/span><\/p>\n

We believe the appeals court decision should be reversed.  <\/span>The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in this case on April 19th.<\/span><\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, I do believe the constitutional challenges against the health care law will succeed.  Specifically, in my view, it will be the Commerce Clause violation that ultimately will result in this law being declared unconstitutional.  It also seems very likely that this case will wind through the legal process and end up at the Supreme…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109,4,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitution","category-religious-freedom","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, I do believe the constitutional challenges against the health care law will succeed.  Specifically, in my view, it will be the Commerce Clause violation that ultimately will result in this law being declared unconstitutional.  It also seems very likely that this case will wind through the legal process and end up at the Supreme…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-30T12:20:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, I do believe the constitutional challenges against the health care law will succeed.  Specifically, in my view, it will be the Commerce Clause violation that ultimately will result in this law being declared unconstitutional.  It also seems very likely that this case will wind through the legal process and end up at the Supreme…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2010-03-30T12:20:44+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html","name":"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-30T12:20:44+00:00","dateModified":"2010-03-30T12:20:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/03\/supreme-court-protecting-right.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court & Protecting Rights of Christian Groups"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}