The Supreme Court waited until the last two days of its term to release two decisions with religious liberty implications. On this season 4 finale of the Respecting Religion podcast, Amanda and Holly look at the unanimous clarifying decision in Groff v. DeJoy and the deeply regressive decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis. They discuss the implications of both of these decisions, noting the conspicuous lack of snark in Justice Samuel Alito’s Groff decision and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s defensive attempt to make his big decision seem not all that remarkable.

SHOW NOTES:

Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The clarifying decision in Groff v. DeJoy

This season, Amanda and Holly previewed the Groff v. DeJoy case in episode 17 and reviewed the oral arguments in episode 19. 

Holly released this statement after the decision on June 29, which was mentioned in this article from SCOTUSblog: Justices rule in favor of evangelical postal worker.

Read the decision by Justice Samuel Alito and concurrence by Justice Sonia Sotomayor at this link.

For more resources, visit BJC’s page on the case: BJConline.org/Groff.

 

Segment 2 (starting at 13:08): The problems with the 303 Creative v. Elenis decision

Amanda and Holly discussed the oral arguments for 303 Creative v. Elenis in episode 8 – an episode we titled “hypotheticals, reeducation, and a preemptive claim.”

Read the opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch and the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor at this link.

 

Segment 3 (starting at 38:55): Saying farewell to season four

Thank you to our listeners and to everyone who contributes to this program. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Visit our website for transcripts of episodes throughout season four: https://bjconline.org/respectingreligion/