Respecting Religion BJC

As the weather heats up, so does the pace of Supreme Court decisions. On our season 5 finale of Respecting Religion, Amanda and Holly recap some recent decisions and discuss what we can expect in the next month. Religion is still at play in several cases, even if religious legal statutes aren’t the questions being considered. Plus, they look at some recent statements from Supreme Court justices during extracurricular activities and share what those reveal about the justices themselves and the work at the Court, including a rare – and surprising – statement one justice gave directly to the media. 
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:51): Recent Supreme Court actions
Amanda and Holly discussed the two Supreme Court cases dealing with abortion rights in episode 28 of this season: Conscience protections in SCOTUS abortion cases
Click here to read the Washington Post article tracking big cases this Supreme Court term.
The case upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. Amanda and Holly mentioned two articles about it:
Amy Howe’s piece for SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court lets CFPB funding stand Steve Vladeck’s piece for One First: How to describe *this* Court The Louisiana voting map decision comes from the consolidated cases of Robinson v. Callais and Landry v. Callais. 
Read Amy Howe’s coverage for SCOTUSblog: Court allows Louisiana to move forward with two majority-Black districts Read Steve Vladeck’s piece for One First: Louisiana’s Congressional Map Comes Back to the Court  
Segment 2 (starting at 09:07): Justices on the stump: Shocking statements and unlikely pairings
Amanda and Holly mentioned recent reporting on appearances by justices of the Supreme Court. The articles they  referred to are:
Justice Kavanaugh on the Presidency, the Court and Taylor Swift by Adam Liptak for The New York Times Justice Thomas Denounces ‘the Nastiness and the Lies’ Faced by His Family by Abbie VanSickle for The New York Times Justice Alito Warns of Threats to Freedom of Speech and Religion by Adam Liptak for The New York Times The Supreme Court seems bitterly divided. Two justices say otherwise. by Ann E. Marimow for The Washington Post According to reports discussed in this show, Justice Kavanaugh mentioned that the school prayer cases are settled law. School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) and Engel v. Vitale (1962) are commonly called the “school prayer cases,” with the decisions in those cases finding government-sponsored religious exercises unconstitutional in public schools, providing protection for the religious liberty rights of all students. Learn more in this 2013 piece by Holly Hollman. 
Amanda and Holly discussed this New York Times story by Jodi Kantor that the American flag outside of Justice Samuel Alito’s home was flown upside down in the days before the inauguration of President Joe Biden. After we recorded this episode, new reporting revealed Justice Alito’s summer house displayed the “Appeal to Heaven” flag in 2023. Read more in this New York Times story by Jodi Kantor, Aric Toler, and Julie Tate: Another Provocative Flag Was Flown at Another Alito Home
To watch the iCivics event featuring Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, visit this C-SPAN link.
 
Segment 3 (starting 26:58): A reading recommendation
Amanda’s book is called How to End Christian Nationalism, and it will be released October 22 from Broadleaf Books. Click here for links to pre-order the book.
Learn more about the work of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign by visiting the website.
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

LGBTQ rights and religious freedom are often pitted against one another, but they are not mutually exclusive. This episode of Respecting Religion looks at the recent decision by the United Methodist Church to repeal its ban on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings as well as the broader conversation. Holly Hollman is joined by guest co-host Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, BJC Communications Director. He shares some of his personal story, then he and Holly reflect on work bridging differences between LGBTQ rights advocacy and religious groups that oppose LGBTQ protections. They highlight the Respect for Marriage Act as one hallmark of bipartisan consensus building that achieves civil rights protections and safeguards religious liberty. 
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 1:23): The changing landscape of LGBTQ rights and religious freedom
Learn more about Guthrie Graves-Fitzimmons in his BJC bio.
Find more resources on religious liberty and the LGBTQ community on BJC’s website. 
For in-depth information about public opinion on LGBTQ rights among different religious groups, visit the Public Religion Research Institute’s website at this link.  
 
Segment 2 (starting at 5:20): The United Methodist Church lifts ban on LGBTQ clergy
Read coverage from Ruth Graham of The New York Times: United Methodist Church Reverses Ban on Practicing Gay Clergy
Read Guthrie’s MSNBC column: “Why United Methodists’ historic vote means so much to gay Christians like me.”
 
Segment 3 (starting 16:33): Bridging differences 
Holly and Guthrie discussed the 2020 Brookings Institution report “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build,” by E.J. Dionne Jr. and Melissa Rogers. 
Respecting Religion has devoted several episodes to the topics discussed in this episode. Listen to Season 4, Episode 7 for more on the Respect for Marriage Act, Season 4, Episode 26 for more on 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Season 1, Episode 17 for more on Bostock v. Clayton County.  
Read more about BJC’s reaction to the Obergefell decision in 2015 in this column from Holly Hollman: Obergefell decision does not remove the separation of church and state. You can also access a 2-page resource with frequently asked questions about the decision.
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

How do religion and religious freedom arguments interact with cases about abortion access? The legal landscape here is beyond complex, and in this episode, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at how conscience protections were discussed in two recent Supreme Court cases about abortion. There is a deepening religion and policy conversation in our country, and they discuss how that conversation is reflected in these oral arguments – from Church Amendments to the doctrine of preemption. 
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:38):  U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Amanda and Holly discussed state laws after the Dobbs decision two weeks ago – in episode 26 of season 5: Archaic laws and new theories emerge from state abortion debates
Learn more about the Arizona legislature’s repeal of the 1864 law in this article by Stacey Barchenger and Ray Stern in the Arizona Republic: Arizona abortion ban repeal signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, but 1864 law will linger for months. What’s next?
Learn more about the 6-week ban on abortions in Florida in this article by Stephanie Colombini for NPR: Florida’s 6-week abortion ban is now in effect, curbing access across the South
We played a series of clips from the oral arguments in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which the Supreme Court heard on March 26, 2024. You can hear the audio at this link. The clips we played featured:
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (from 00:00:48 into the arguments) Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (from 00:28:31 into the arguments) Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (from 00:29:11 into the argument) Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Attorney Erin Hawley (from 01:16:40 into the argument) Read an overview of conscience protections from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at this link.
 
Segment 2 (starting at 19:26): Moyle v. United States
Moyle v. United States is a consolidated case with Idaho v. United States.
“EMTALA” stands for “Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.” Read what the American Medical Association says about the case and EMTALA at this link. 
We played a series of clips from the oral arguments in Moyle v. United States, which the Supreme Court heard on April 24, 2024. You can hear the audio at this link. The clips we played featured:
Justice Elena Kagan and Attorney Joshua Turner (from 00:06:09 into the argument) Attorney Joshua Turner and Justice Elena Kagan (from 00:08:02 into the argument) Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Attorney Joshua Turner (from 00:23:54 into the argument) Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Attorney Joshua Turner (from 00:48:43 into the argument) Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

For the 100th episode of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman answer listener questions, ranging from the law surrounding the tax-exempt status of religious institutions to their favorite Supreme Court justices. They also look at some of the big Supreme Court decisions and the shifts on the Court since this podcast began four years ago, sharing some of their favorite and most impactful episodes.
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): How did we get to 100 episodes?
The podcast series on the dangers of Christian nationalism ran in 2019, and it’s available on the BJC Podcast feed, and you can see all of the episodes on this page of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism website. 
Holly and Amanda mentioned some of their favorite episodes, including:
S3, Ep. 21: The live show reacting to the Kennedy v. Bremerton decision S4, Ep. 22: Amanda’s experience at the ReAwaken America tour S1, Ep. 15: Reacting to President Trump’s photo-op with a Bible in 2020 You can see a list of every single episode at BJConline.org/RespectingReligion
 
Segment 2 (starting at 19:06): Questions on tax-exempt status, tough conversations, and more
Holly mentioned the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States. You can read the decision here.
For more about the Respect for Marriage Act, check out episode 7 from season 4: Does the Respect for Marriage Act protect religious liberty?
For more on the Johnson Amendment and the way it protects churches and other groups who are eligible for the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, visit this page on our website. Amanda and Holly also discussed it a bit on episode 4 of season 2: Grading the Trump administration on religious freedom.
Holly mentioned episode 6 from season 3: Challenging misinformation: How to have productive conversations with friends and family.
 
Segment 3 (starting at 34:07): Questions on podcast recommendations, favorite Supreme Court justices, and more
The podcasts mentioned by Amanda and Holly were:
Strict Scrutiny
Prosecuting Donald Trump 
The Ezra Klein Show
Another Mother Runner
Amicus
Ten Percent Happier
Amanda and Holly discussed being interns at BJC. The internship program is ongoing – learn more about the opportunities by visiting BJConline.org/internships
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

The intersection of abortion and religion often grabs headlines, and this episode of Respecting Religion looks at recent developments in two states: Arizona and Indiana. Amanda and Holly discuss an Indiana case that involves free exercise arguments under state law to support abortion, and they examine the impact of Arizona’s 1864 law that criminalizes abortion. Both situations are resulting from the tremendous change in the law after the Dobbs decision in 2022, leading to some unexpected situations. 
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The Arizona situation
Our next episode will be our 100th episode! It’s your chance to ask Amanda and Holly anything – send in your questions by April 29 to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org.
Amanda and Holly previously discussed the aftermath of the Dobbs decision in episode 4 of season 4, released in October 2022. The show was titled “A religious freedom right to an abortion?” 
The New York Times has this helpful resource that shows the differences in the laws regarding abortion in states across the country. 
Amanda and Holly mentioned this article for Vox written by Nicole Naera: The history of Arizona’s Civil War-era abortion ban
After we recorded this program, the Arizona House voted to repeal the 1864 law, and the Arizona Senate is expected to vote on it next week. Read more in this Washington Post article by Caroline Kitchener and Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. 
 
Segment 2 (starting at 12:12): The Indiana litigation
For a more in-depth discussion of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), check out episode 6 of season 5: RFRA at 30.
Read the opinion from the Indiana Appeals Court and the concurrence at this link.
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Some troubling trends at the Supreme Court are starting to affect the legal profession and how students in law school approach the U.S. Constitution. As SCOTUS continues to upend decades of established precedent in church-state law, Amanda and Holly discuss what’s changed since they were in law school and the rapid changes in church-state law itself. They look at the views of legitimacy of the Court, and Holly shares specifically what she sees in her work teaching church-state law at Georgetown University Law Center. 
 
SHOW NOTES
Segment 1 (starting at 01:15): Respect for the Supreme Court in law school
Read “The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law,” an opinion piece by Jesse Wegman for The New York Times.
Holly mentioned recent episodes of Respecting Religion that covered:
Religious accommodation in the workplace (episode 26 of season 4 on Groff v. DeJoy) The funding of private religious schools with government funds (episode 20 of season 3 on Carson v. Makin) Prayer by a coach on the 50-yard-line (episode 21 of season 3 on Kennedy v. Bremerton) Amanda mentioned the book Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court by H.W. Perry. 
 
Segment 2 (starting at 10:51): Turning points, hypocrisy, and partisan muscle 
Holy mentioned how SCOTUS uses history and tradition and the case of Greece v. Galloway, which we covered in episode 3 of season 5.
 
Segment 3 (starting at 21:26): The differences in the Souter/Stevens/O’Connor era and what it’s like in the classroom today
To read more about the Supreme Court religious liberty cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, check out this article by Jane G. Rainey published by the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. 
Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.