The HOA told the Morris Family they were not able to display their Christmas decorations on the basis of religion. This violates the Fair Housing Act which ensures no religious discrimination. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

Jeremy Morris likes to decorate for Christmas. Actually, that’s underselling it by quite a bit.  Jeremy Morris, and his wife Kristy, decorate nearly every inch of their home with Christmas lights. 

The display in northern Idaho became such a hit at Christmas time, they decided to make it a community event.  When folks would stop by to see the display, they would invite them onto their driveway for hot chocolate, a picture with Santa, and even an opportunity to share with them the Biblical story of Christmas.

When the Morris’s decided to move into a new neighborhood, they looked at the homeowner’s association’s covenants and didn’t see any problem with the display.  Still, wanting to be good neighbors, they gave the HOA a heads up. That’s when things took a turn.

The HOA explained in a letter that “some of our residents are non-Christians or of another faith,” noting that they were concerned for the “problems that could bring up.” 

So, on the basis of religion, they told them they could not decorate their house at Christmas—even though houses in the neighborhood are decorated for Halloween. 

So, Jeremy filed a lawsuit and a jury determined that the HOA violated the Fair Housing Act, engaging in religious discrimination.  But, soon after, a federal judge overruled the jury’s verdict!

First Liberty has taken on the appeal, hoping to restore the jury’s verdict.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The United States national motto was declared by Congress as “In God We Trust”. This motto promotes patriotism and references the country’s religious heritage and is protected under the law. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

The State of Mississippi has a new license plate, but not everyone is happy about it.  To understand why, you need a little background.

In 1956, the U.S Congress declared “In God We Trust” to be the national motto.  Since then, the Supreme Court of the United States has routinely acknowledged the important, very constitutional, place phrases like, “In God We Trust” have played in the history and heritage of our country. In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently indicated that the national motto plainly does not advance religion, it serves a secular purpose of promoting patriotism, and is simply a reference to our religious heritage.

So, now back to Mississippi’s license plates which have been redesigned to feature in the background the national motto. Someone with an axe to grind about the appearance of the letters “G,” “O,” and “D” in succession and in public sent a letter to the state’s revenue commissioner claiming the new design violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Well, First Liberty sent its own letter.  Not only did we explain that the license plates featuring the national motto is perfectly acceptable under the law, we offered to represent the state—for free—should anyone be foolish enough to actually file a lawsuit over it.

Hopefully no lawsuit comes and our services won’t be needed, but Mississippi is safe to include the national motto on its license plates.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Activists insist that elected officials praying in public violates the Establishment Clause. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that all elected officials are allowed to pray if they please before public meetings. Learn more at Firstliberty.org/Briefing.

It’s easy to misunderstand the law when it’s confusing, but not when there are multiple decisions on the topic.

In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a paid legislative chaplain is perfectly permissible under the constitution. Then, in 2014, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court said those prayers could even be sectarian without violating the Establishment Clause.

But, still activists question the practice. In Mt. Sterling, Ohio, village councilmembers want to start their meetings with prayer.  But, activists insist that might be “chipping away at the Establishment Clause.”

That’s hard to imagine, given that not only has the U.S. Supreme Court twice said that legislative prayers do not violate the Establishment Clause, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in the 2017 decision Bormuth v. County of Jackson that those sectarian prayers can be offered by the lawmakers themselves! 

As Judge Sutton wrote, concurring in the en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit, “the United States Constitution does not tell federal judges to hover over each town hall meeting in the country like a helicopter parent, scolding/revising/okaying the content of this legislative prayer or that one.”

First Liberty Institute represented the County of Jackson in that case because we believe that all Americans—even elected officials—should be free to pray (or not) before public meetings and according to their own conscience.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Taking offense does not render a lawsuit, and this is supported by the Supreme Court of the United States. Letters of offense due to religion can be ignored because the law does not exist to resolve offense. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

Lawsuits exist to redress actual injury.  But, it seems that some activists think lawsuits exist to resolve offense.

You hear it all the time.  Recently, activists complained about the presence of a Bible at a VA Medical Clinic.  A World War II veteran donated it.  He was a prisoner of war and thought it appropriate that the VA display it as part of a POW/MIA remembrance table at the clinic.  Right on cue, an angry activist sent a letter claiming offense, demanding that this historic Bible be removed.

First Liberty Institute sent a letter reassuring the VA that the display is perfectly legal.  We reminded them that removing any Bible from such a display could not only dishonor the memory of the brave men remembered, it might actually be unlawful. Offense is not a cause of action. And the Supreme Court of the United States agrees. 

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, explained:

Offense, however, does not equate to coercion. Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable; and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views.

So, if you ever get a threatening letter that is based entirely upon someone being offended by the presence of a religious item or symbol, just ignore it.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Just how far must an employer go to accommodate a person’s religious belief at work? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

Just how far must an employer go to accommodate someone’s religion at work?  That’s a question being presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Patterson v. Walgreens. 

Darrell Patterson worked for the drugstore which promoted him to be a trainer of customer-care representatives.  The company scheduled him to work on a Saturday, which interfered with his observance of the Sabbath as a Seventh Day Adventist.  The company refused to let him swap shifts with a colleague working the same job, but offered to return him to his previous position, which Patterson argues would be a demotion.  He refused and Walgreens fired Patterson.

The case explores whether a company must offer an accommodation to an employee if doing so will cause undue hardship.  The current definition of “undue hardship” means something more than a “de minimis cost.”  That’s a fancy way of saying that an undue hardship is trifling, minimal, or so insignificant that it can be ignored.

Patterson’s case has enormous potential to resolve a number of questions left unresolved by the lower courts. Employers and employees both benefit from such clarity.  While employers should respect the religious conscience of its employees, the law does not require them to bend over backwards to do so.  Still, employers should probably err on accommodating their employee’s religious beliefs more rather than less. 

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

No one likes a test, especially one based on one’s character or religious belief, and no one should be forced to pass a religious test for office. But does Article VI apply to the states? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

No one likes a test.  At least not the kind that are unfair, meant as a pass/fail standard upon the character of a person.

That is why the Framers of the United States Constitution included a prohibition on a religious test for office in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.  But, did that federal prohibition apply to the states?

That is a question presented by Roy Torcaso to the Supreme Court of the United States. Torcaso, a professed atheist, wished to be a notary public in the State of Maryland, but could not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. 

Justice Hugo Black explained in Torcaso v. Watkins that the prohibition on religious tests for office in the U.S. Constitution was to be extended to state constitutions as well.  He wrote, “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’"

That is similar to what James Madison wrote in Federalist 52, where he explains that “the door of this part of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”

In other words, you don’t have to pass a religious test to qualify for public office in America.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Coach Kennedy, a high school football coach in Washington, was fired for taking a knee and saying a silent prayer after football games. First Liberty fought this case all the way to the Supreme Court and despite the troubling decision, they declined to review his case. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Coach Joe Kennedy’s petition to review his case. That’s a setback, but one with a silver lining.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, issued a statement accompanying the denial.  In one part, Justice Alito explained that the court requires additional information that further litigation should supply. In another, he criticized the Ninth Circuit’s decision, characterizing it as “troubling.” 

But then the Justices noted that the petition rested solely on a free speech claim, and not a claim under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  As he explained, that is likely “due to certain decisions of this Court,” namely the 1990 decision of Employment Division v. Smith.  Justice Alito observed that the effect of that decision has been to “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.”

As Coach Kennedy’s attorneys, First Liberty Institute is eager to return to the District Court, answer the questions the justices raised in their statement, and give the Court another opportunity to protect the right of every American to engage in private religious expression, including praying in public, without fear of getting fired.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court seems to understand that banning all coaches from praying just because they can be seen is wrong and contradicts the Constitution.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

New York Timesauthor, Linda Greenhouse reveals how much of the mainstream media really views the fight for the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

It is always interesting to read how the mainstream media views things like the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesrecently authored a lengthy commentary.  Her conclusion?  That the folks trying to destroy the memorial are going to lose, but that’s about it for the good news. 

According to Greenhouse, a growing faction of conservative Justices of the Supreme Court that are increasingly committed to interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as permitting the display of religious symbols on public property and the Free Exercise Clause as providing, in her words, “robust protection for believers.” 

To Greenhouse, this is not good because, she says, “the heart and soul of a diverse country . . . is going in one direction while the Supreme Court . . . is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.”

But, that is factually untrue.  For one thing, according to recent polling 80% of Americans agree that memorials using religious imagery to remember our war dead is perfectly reasonable.  Those are the real“heart and soul” of this country.

Removing religious imagery from public display does not make us more diverse.  It sends a message contrary to the constitution’s promise that religion in American is to be respected in personal and public life.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Teachers are supposed to teach freedom of speech and religion, not censor it.  But both teachers and school officials continue to demonstrate their fear of anything resembling an endorsement of religion. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

On Ash Wednesday, it is common to see individuals bearing the mark of the cross on their foreheads, part of a religious tradition reminding the faithful of their own sinfulness and the atoning work of Christ on the cross.

Evidently not everyone understands that. William McLeod, a fourth grader at Valley View Elementary School in Utah, is Catholic. He showed up to school on Wednesday morning with the traditional mark of the cross on his forehead. 

His teacher took him aside, handed him a wet cloth, and instructed him to wash his forehead clean.  He attempted to explain the reason for the mark, but to no avail. William spent the rest of the school day embarrassed and upset.  Later, school administrators responded to complaints by his family and the teacher apologized. 

Students are free to exercise their faith—even at school—so long as doing so does not interfere with the educational mission of the school.  A harmless, silent mark of ash on one’s forehead does nothing to prevent such instruction.  Situations like this show how afraid school officials have become of any display of religion in school.

As one court wisely put it, in situations like these, “The school’s proper response is to educate the audience rather than squelch the speaker.”    

In other words, they should teach, not censor.

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Jack Phillips’ case may be over but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a lasting impact through the case of ‘Sweetcakes by Melissa.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.

Jack Phillips’ long ordeal appears to be over.  But, as Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Jack’s case, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” 

That includes First Liberty’s clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein.

The State of Oregon shut down Aaron and Melissa Klein’s “Sweetcakes by Melissa,” penalizing them $135,000 for the simple act of declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Oregon rests all of its actions on a law that theoretically applies generally to everyone and, on its face, treats religious exercise neutrally. 

That position is grounded in the 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Employment Division v. Smith.  The product of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority opinion in Employment Division has been roundly criticized through the years. 

The danger of Employment Divisionis that it allows laws that doburden one of the key provisions of the First Amendment—namely, the free exercise of religion—to escape meaningful judicial review. Aaron and Melissa’s case provides the Court an opportunity to correct that.

Jack Phillips’ case left American business owners wondering whether the government can prescribe what they believe and force them to confess accordingly.  The Constitution prohibits government officials, high or petty, from compelling small business owners to create a message contrary to their religious beliefs. 

To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.