BREAKING: Two Major Victories for Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court

Breaking news to major victories for religious freedom and religious liberty at the US Supreme Court talked about today on Jay Sekulow line live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow live in a decision. We just got from the times they been back and forth to the court a win for the Little sisters of the poor.

Phone lines are open for your questions right now: 1-800-684-3110. Another involving religious freedom with the same vote breakdown in that case, the Supreme Court said that religious schools who employ teachers are exempt from the normal rules the normal civil protections that the laws that protect employees from job discrimination that those rules don't apply to teachers in religious schools, and now your host Jordan secular major victory for religious liberty for religious freedom at the US today. Both cases 722 both the same makeup of justices. So you've got again two different authors in the opinions in these cases.

So one of the first one to come out this morning was the our Lady of Guadalupe school versus Agnes Morsi and also combined with St. James school of versus Daniel Beale. This was written by Justice Alito. 722 so the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, joined by Justice Kagan and Briar say makeup, by the way, in the case the Little sisters of the poor.

72. Justice Thomas writing the opinion Kagan and Briar joining the conservatives.

Let's start off with our Lady of Guadalupe school. This is another case very similar. Remember, Hosanna, table, or that was a case about do religious schools fall under the ministerial exception. That means it did they decide who to hire and fire and if they believe that someone does not share the faith or the principles of the school. The ideology of the school that they can be fired and not face potential civil rights claims in court that someone can't even take them to court to make that claim what was 9 to 0. Back in that case. This case expands Hosanna table were actually out to even more individuals who work for the school and the court not enabled, and in a unanimous decision pretty close. 722 saying yes the ministerial exception still applies and it's the hundreds and correct look.

This is a big win for religious liberty want to be clear. First of all, you have a supermajority of the court. 72. That's a good sign it to religious freedom cases that you have a liberal members of the court.

Siding with conservatives. Specifically, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan just prior religious liberty has been all patent is issued got cases involving 10 Commandments displays, I determined to be constitutional in context, so we argued in our brief, we found a friend of the court brief in this case, and we said the animating principle of the ministerial exemption is the preservation of religious autonomy in every other context where institutional autonomy has been an important consideration. This court is consistently according to significant degree of deference to the institution's decision, the court in its opinion starts with the independence of religious institutions is matters of faith and doctrine is closely linked to the independence of what the court has termed matters of church government. So this tracks very closely to what we set forth in our arguments and obviously this is a very big decision on 722. We also have a little sisters upbringing over both of them quickly now. They also have the Little sisters of the poor get the more in-depth in a moment so I little since the poor 72 again.

Justice Thomas writing for the majority, Justice Kagan Briar joined the conservative justices of the US Supreme Court and here. Remember, this was the birth control mandated the abortifacient mandate and remember to Artie see the Hobby lobby case where at private companies that were not religious but were closely held, were exempt from the affordable care act's mandate on this will now it is clear after many years of legal battle that show our religious organizations such as a closely held businesses, but religious nonprofit organizations as well, and the holding there. We hope the departments had the authority as the US government provide moral and religious exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirement for employers religious conscience objection so big when they are for little sister or big when work religious schools as well. Take your call one 864 3110. Our petition to stop the banning of singing in church is now over 120,000 of you have signed a petition@aclj.org. The American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollar gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our matching challenge today make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms you forgive today online ACLJ only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life in many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow secular doctors on their one 800-6831 10. What do these two big victories for religious freedom and religious liberty as Supreme Court talking about. Now there on different topics. What is being exempt from those mandates and the affordable care act violated the religious conscience of Little sisters of the poor and other groups.

By the way, we'll talk about that in just a minute without Frank Manion from the Mercer fly Justice and then in the second case in expansion of Hosanna table or the case that says it really religious private schools have autonomy and they do not face the same kind of threat of potential lawsuits from employees who were fired became especially and especially civil rights lawsuit. When employees are fired because of religious reasons and they they don't they don't have share the same principles or religious beliefs of the school.

The school is allowed to operate and operate as a religious school minute. It's pretty it makes a lot of sense. But this case actually expanded on the Hosanna Tabor case to the staff that would be that this would apply to so it's a big win for private religious schools, and religious liberty there and also other religious organizations.

By the way, not disclosed by the religious organization and little sister. The poor same thing. It goes to the yester to the issue of the contraceptive mandate and the exemption there and and the objection to that being constitutional now that case, you're finally this long legal battle with little sister the poor, but it goes those bigger issues to of religious objection conscientious objection as well. You have this report strongly holding 72 there and Frank Manion is drawing us down that I note that it's important to point out Franklin to point out then the little sister's case to ACLJ.

We did more than just file comments and here's our amicus brief right here holding my hand for those watching on Facebook and periscope we had filed and litigated at least eight separate lawsuits on the moral exemption to the abortifacient contraception met mandate eight cases in federal court case unveiled at the ACLJanice we we also filed the very first challenge to the mandate on behalf of brought O'Brien industrial holdings of St. Louis. We argued this case in three different courts of appeal, the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit and DC circuit crafted and honed in litigation. Virtually all of the arguments that the court uses today. In their opinion to underpin its decision. Frank Manion is joining us now and Frank as you as you let us note this is not just a vindication for little sister.

The poor, but also for all those religious and moral objectors who been fighting this battle for years and such a great day for religious liberty.

We had a bad day lately at the corporate today's a good day. The day was celebrated and it isn't just a little sister. You're right.

I made you just pointed out the ACL date filed the first case challenging this mandate on behalf of the company in St. Louis and we filed seven others in federal court on behalf of 32 individuals. We had others that wanted to sue and we kind of said let's just wait and see what the court does it import. I think the point out the bigotry involved here. The objectors one in the hobby lobby case for nonprofit or for-profit company. We won that decision that the little sister's along with other religious institutions also one in the Subic case. So what happened what the principal had been accepted by the Supreme Court in both of those cases the trump administration decided to codify the exemption by enacting these regulations simply putting in writing, in effect what the Supreme Court had previously held in both the Subic case and the hobby lobby cases but the AG's of both Pennsylvania and New Jersey weren't happy with that decided to challenge it. This is real amounts to malice and bigotry that they even bother to bring these cases and what the Supreme Court today. Essentially we met what we set in those cases you cannot force these religious institutions and even secular employers with religious strong religious objection to do what their religion tells them they may not do find another way government. If you think that people need free access to contraception and abortifacient use of government provided don't make religious objectors violate their religious beliefs here which I think it's very very important for people understand is that we have been litigating these cases for a very long time. But not just litigating Van Bennett on this.

We have filed comments early on when this was all being discussed and Jordan IJ for more than a decade. I mean you go back to the original Obama care law.

We were advocating in this space when the law was passed in 2010 but then J I'm holding our very first comment made in 2011 when the Obama administration wanted input in the underlying mandate that Frank is talking about and that we litigated on over the last decade J that has carried forward to this case. The next document that I'm holding for those who are watching is the comments that we filed on this and this rule from the trump administration, correcting the onerous mandates from the Obama administration J and then the amicus brief that we filed in this case listen at this almost 500,000 ACLJ #the petition on that brief, culminating in a decades long work on the regulatory side that culminated at the Supreme Court J that's half a million ACLJ members that if stuck through us over the decades on both the litigation side and the regulatory side.

All of that work is what allows a day like this to happen. As Frank said, we filed the very first series of cases on this, of course, were involved in the Supreme Court filing briefs holding my hand right now in both the cases that were decided Taylor to get any combos impression on first let's let's focus right now and Little sisters of the poor. What was your site and we felt like we were to win the case.

It was hostility aimed at the religious participants there.

The nuns, but obviously I don't think any of us naturally thought we were to win by 72. Know that we would win, but I thought it would be very narrow. I was hoping Robert would rule with a bent so ambivalent in his rulings but is a true Catholic. He did the right thing in the what astounded me was that just with Byron Kagan sided with us in the little sister to the Borges by saying that were going to allow employers and schools with moral objections to be exempt from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage and I think this also underlines the trump administration review of which was consistent with that little sister of the poor, which is an order of Catholic nuns who have consistently thought the contraceptive insurance requirement and we were victorious and I think it Frank that this is that they put tremendous celebration, particularly with respect to the little sister but also in the lid and the lady of Guadalupe, a case in which the statement made by their lawyer I think was impressive to me.

And that is the last thing the government official should do is to decide who is authorized to teach Catholicism to Catholics or Judaism to use my my case orthodoxy to the Orthodox that is the business of the school and not of the government back to Frank and Jordan take Frank quickly. I thought one of the key factors in this case in Little sisters of the poor that the Graham encouraged and it does apply to our Lady of Guadalupe to is that you got this kind of supermajority of Supreme Court justices recognizing the importance of religious freedom, religious liberty, especially on these internal decisions which is kind of the heart of religious liberty actually very incurred by the fact that we are private Kagan about going forward will be litigating issues like this down the road and it's good to know that they can keep an open mind and not just march in lockstep with their their liberal colleagues on these issues.

Your people to talk about separation of church and state, but here it is. Keep the government out of churches and how they organized their institutions and how they used to run them and who they inch they choose to employ or who they choose to dismiss. That's one of the principles is vindicated here and it's been there from the founding of the country and the Supreme Court has reinvigorated it today because my hundred 6431 2064, three $0.21 dear yachtsman recap 322 major victories for religious liberty religious freedom.

As for the first in the case, our Lady of Guadalupe.

This is a case involving schools.

The case concerns to Ninth Circuit decision to different schools which misinterpreted the screen porch does his decision and they 920 Hosanna tape or case and created a split which other federal and state courts is applying the ministerial exception, so we filed again in this in the main point of our brief was that the animating principle of ministerial exception, which again was held 9 to 0 in Hosanna tape or is applying his preservation of religious autonomy in every other context where institutional autonomy has been an important consideration. Supreme Court has consistently accorded a significant degree of deference to the institution decisions. That's what our brief highlighted that is what the Supreme Court concluded this was a brief again written by Justice Alito just to read you some of the brief on page 2 of the brief of the opinion judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institution in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate from page 22. In a country with a religious diversity of the United States.

Judges cannot be expected to have a complete understanding and appreciation of the role played by every person performs a particular role in every religious tradition of religious institutions explanation of the role of such employees in the life of the religion in question is important.

Once you understand our folks this idea of religious autonomy missed ministerial exception is been expanded by the US Supreme Court in the little sister, the poor, the codification of the exemption from those abortifacients and contraception has also been approved. If you will, by the US Supreme Court 722.

These are big victories.

Religious liberty come back we'll talk about how does this tie into the case were about to file on singing in church only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists. The ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the motion and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy mission life today online ACLJ/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollar gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do. Simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge today to make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms give a gift today online ACLJ Jay Sekulow your phone calls 100-684-3110 at 2064th 3110 ID it's important to tie this into as well. Working on a California this band on singing in churches as California mandated and said the churches must cease any singing or chanting in churches and we are preparing that lawsuit as we speak were adding more more clients that lawsuit so likely that will be filed tomorrow or Friday as we are adding clients and adding different denominations, different religious groups. I different I religious traditions to that lawsuit wired. Why do these cases played important role well, look at how the court has given this broad autonomy to religious organizations. Both wanted to be exempt when they claim that something violates their conscience and to to have a special exception to even the civil rights laws in the United States on employment when it involves a ministerial exception that they have these decision-making.

Why do they get treated differently because the First Amendment to the Constitution decided our founding fathers when drafting. That said, we are going to make sure that religious organizations have eight Iva is a higher burden much higher burden to try and regulate them in the government should stay out of the way and so government should not be issuing edicts like you can't sing in church and that that I thought I look at these decisions today that I say that that's trying some positive light potentially on those kick the case at a California. This attempt to ban singing specifically for religious people. I think so. Especially acknowledging as as we must, that these cases are likely that the California cases are likely to end up at the Supreme Court, but relatively quickly. There is a quote in the our Lady of Guadalupe case that was where the school was not going to hire teachers. We are teachers that did not fulfill the faith commitments of those particular religious institution and it says that although those teeth, these teachers were not given the title of minister and have less religious training than the teacher in Hosanna Tabor, an earlier case involving a ministerial exemptions. We hold that there case falls within the same role that dictated our decision in Hosanna Tabor religious education formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of teachers upon whom the schools were like to do this work lie at the core of their mission of Frank. This sets up the fact that system.

My goodness, we've been arguing this for 35 years that and we finally got a decision not to say it that it really does mean that religious institutions determine the people that work within those institutions, especially those impacting the mission of the organization. Secularist juggernaut evaluate religion.

It does not understand the value of religion. It doesn't understand the value of religion for religious people today and it certainly devalues the importance of religion for those who founded the country. The whole framework of the country is largely based on a recognition that religion is extremely valuable is extremely important is of paramount importance it in the first amendment and the First Amendment, and yet they don't want to ever accept that value in today's society. And I think going forward. These decisions are a very good harbinger of what's to come out that Jordan talked about the singing in church issue that Justice Alito can't wait to get that case will have you ever regulation it targets a religious practice while at the same time allowing similars exemptions for secular practices. That's a no-brainer at the Supreme Court and it's at least a 7 to 2 decision after what we see today. In these cases, but let's talk a little bit about the got the two decisions in the street by the way, think about decisions where you get to more decisions tomorrow. Pretty big day. The presence cases that we argued back in May will be decided tomorrow because tomorrow is the last day of the term, but as it relates to these cases. Any when you look at them together both the little sisters and our Lady of Guadalupe. Eight. It tells me that there is now a cohesive understanding within a majority mean the supermajority of Supreme Court judges justice is at least as relates to religious autonomy issues of religious freedom finally see that Breyer and Kagan have letterspacing the light and outside with her conservative college. I was not concerned about Justice Ginsburg and Sutter Mayor. I believe there a lost cause they're going to rule the way that they rule in their liberal secular you going no matter what happens, but at least Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan realized it seems to me the importance of the autonomy of religion and the significance that it plays in this secular world.

It is a carveout of the spirituality that is part of the nation. Like it or not deny our history tear down our statues do all the things that you want to do.

You cannot deny Frank that that there is a reason that religion was put in the first amendment to the Constitution that was the founding principle upon which the people who came from Europe to found this country were seeking to establish and that should be untouchable by the civil government and these decisions point of that and they augur well for the future. J of our case, we are filing regarding singing and chanting at school and I think that that is those outcomes are going to be just as satisfying and victorious for us as these two today. Understand also sending Jordan to that.

We been litigating these issues and we talk about not only litigating we been involved in these issues for decades and even as it relates to the Little sisters of the poor, before there was litigation. The ACLJ raised the concern back in 2010. A decade ago that there was serious problems here affecting religious institutions plan. Yet even when Obama care was being debated on the Florida house. This is why the alarm bells that we raise J that if there is not statutory constant protection put in for religious entities that this is exactly the path we would go down and ultimately J Congress gave sort of a verbal assurance that the protections would be granted and we said, look, the Obama administration is not going to carry those out in regulation and that's exactly how it played out. It took a decade to get it righted BJ the language that you read just a minute ago. I was so heartened by because here's essentially what it says it says the government does not get to tell a religious entity what is or is not central to his face so he could be singing it could be chanting.

It could be service to the poor.

It could be teaching it could be education J those decisions and determining what is central to your faith. Those belong to the institutions not to the government, and Jake. We made that case on these airwaves a decade ago, when this was being litigated.

I don't think goodness. A decade later, we finally prevail right folks reassert. I take your phone calls come back in second half hour Jay Sekulow life you want to get your update on both of these big religious liberty victories out of the US Supreme Court will also start again explaining how how things are moving in California on that band on singing and chanting in churches, we come back on Jay Sekulow live. Let me encourage you to take action@aclj.r member yes in the bronchus and I hope by then the broadcast we headed we got over 50,000 on the petition.

Your we are today hundred and 26,586 signatures on ACLJ.order of the petition. Note band singing in church.

You are responding to go to ACLJade I don't sign that petition don't band singing in church. If you've Artie signed share the petition with your friends and family on social media as share this broadcast right now. Click that share about this we go with our second half hour coming up in just a minute on Jay Sekulow live click share your watch on Facebook and periscope bring more people to this discussion that they understand the significance of these two religious liberty victories at the US Supreme Court and how important this is, in light of our coming legal challenge to the California bad on singing and chanting in churches.

This is a great time provide to support the work of the mixer fly just as we have a matching challenge right now. Whatever utility that goes for the month of July is double the donor rate to match your donation you take the first action donate online support our work it ACLJ.org donate today at the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be matched $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 could make a difference in the world who knew protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online LJ live from Washington DC Jay Sekulow and now secular two cases of this report today involving religious liberty religious liberty that the US import tomorrow the final day, the court opinion so the trunk by the tax issue that is the big what is been the court watching and waiting for that will be out tomorrow.

Did that tomorrow is the final day. The court usually they would go this long.

Remember, they're not even the not even using the building that out there that are reading from their opinions and things they would usually be doing. We had arguments, we attend arguments in May. Normally the last documents are in April we had these in the middle of May was alive phone in and moving pretty hard. Counseling heard the arguments you can listen to the arguments because they were all broadcast live. Actually, there it was that unique because it was not the usual like when they do allow the put out broadcast in the court. The audio spree perfect and things like that this by phone cell is different and so is this process now, which from the Supreme Court we know tomorrow. Is it and what was important about two victories one the cases, our Lady of Guadalupe. This was an expansion of the ministerial exception for religious schools and institutions what does that mean it means the government is not going to allow courts in lawsuits to go digging into the decision-making process of religious institutions in churches when it comes to hiring and firing specifically with hiring and firing his dad based off the fact of someone's beliefs so that you can hire and fire people for your school based off the fact that they share the same religious philosophy that your school bus and that those people who may be hired or fired cannot then turn around and try to file a lawsuit against you for wrongful termination and at if you then put forward that the termination was based off the decision under this ministerial exception was the court already had it a 90920 decision, they've expanded audit today. 722 this is a big win for religious schools and religious organizations. That's one case the other case when you've heard about time and time again for a decade, little sister.

The poor finally getting the. The final victory that they have sought in court and that was the codification of their exemption from the affordable care act's mandate on contraception abortifacients. They have now won a victory there. 722. This is another big win for religious organizations and religious religious groups why because initially in the hobby lobby case this would that was about closely held businesses. It didn't have to do with there it had to do with their religious beliefs of the closely held businesses owners.

Those who have closely held the business but it wasn't about root specifically nonprofit religious organizations and so this case got audit on now. This is been codified into law, and that codification has been given the green light that was done by the Trump administration. By the way is been given the green light. 722 by the US Supreme Court. Interestingly same makeup in both these cases, different authors of opinions but same 722 makeup that at the US Supreme Court. She had Justice Alito writing what opinion, Justice Thomas Wright and the other but it's it's that those in agreement are the same. Yet, including justices Breyer and Justice Kagan so that I think the important here on will quickly get to the Frank will get ready to break it break your friends do this in 30 or 40 seconds, but the fact that those two justices joined not just concurring in judgment but join Justice Alito's opinion speaks volumes for religious liberty. Very good sign.

Going forward for from Breyer mammoth case and also Kagan. In other cases and it's just very heartening and encouraging to see it because that be litigating this case down the road and I think I quickly here echoing that I think these are monumental decisions today.

They are monumental decisions in for religious liberty and related freedom and for the First Amendment of the Constitution and for the free exercise of religion.

In other words, is telling the government you stay out of our religious institutions don't tell us who we cover and we don't cover based upon what we believe in insurance in the area of insurance. For example, in the Little sisters of the poor and with respect to employment, you don't tell you Luther they think Jewish to Orthodox with a cute orthodontic to our Catholic Catholic you don't, you don't have to buy employees in those areas and they got even farther to just be the religion teacher at the school and grade teacher at the school because we all know if you favor to the religious schools. Every teacher is is teaching something that is heavily as so it's been expanded to that, we come back and take your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110. The American Center for Law and just as were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who are faith uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help in any way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift dollars $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms online ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activists ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/Jay Sekulow this Jordan sent you to explain your P waves talk about this way to on the ministerial exception. This applies to a lot of you folks if you'd kids attend any kind of religious schooling whatsoever, though schools have just been given that much more autonomy to decide how to make the decisions they want. Based off their faith. And that's a good thing for all of you have students in religious schools or may in the future of students, religious schools, because it takes that threat of lawsuits away from schools which are nonprofit rely mostly on donations and that that those who attended this cost of attendance to be able to fund the school.

The P waves explained it this way.

How does this different from the case that came out with the ministerial exception hosanna table 4 years ago that was 920.

Here's the difference by 24. The court ruled a couple of years ago that if teachers in essence provide a ministerial mission that is to say they are passing along the faith to their students. Then that exception applies. This broadens it out just a little bit to say that even if they don't strictly teach just religious dogma that they are also covered by the ask the same exception, they cannot sue for discrimination and I think that everybody was attended a religious school or everybody who has students attending a religious school understands that it doesn't matter for the math teacher that you also are involved in the religious instruction of the school, maybe not as much as the teacher who is focused on the Bible class work or in a Jewish school. Something else and maybe some schools are different, maybe some schools don't bite. There are some that don't mind whether that specific teachers have share the same faith because what they're teaching, but others do an end, and certainly it doesn't really matter what subject they're teaching. It is a matter for PE coach, that religion comes into the two about their role and so if the school wants to make that kind of decision and have a school like that, once recorded said is they can, and that they want to burden by lawsuits. So one of the things Frank that I like about this when you least wagon and just an initial quick rate here is it I think builds a hedge of protection around looking at the our Lady of Guadalupe case. It builds a hedge of protection around the religious schools, religious institutions in defining who in fact are those individuals that would be qualifying for the exemption under which it lets the religious institution set forth. These people are part of the propagation of the faith year and that can be very broad and that's what this is all about about government staying out a religious ability to define itself and its mission, and who propagates that mission for as Jordan pointed out in most religious schools that people left their kids in religious schools are thinking about is whether reasons they send them there. Every teacher and really every employee is supposed to be exemplifying the religious tenets of the body that sponsors and pays for the school and so the Supreme Court if they were not going to nitpick who is and is not part of the religious mission of the school if the school says that the math teacher is a minister quote unquote because the math teacher supposed to embody the religious principles of the school.

We are not going to second guess that it's not our role that goes back to the founding of the Republic.

We are staying out of that and letting religions and religious institutions flourish to the best of their ability.

Because that's a good thing for all of us is 164, 31 to particular calls this year because first disagree time to call in at 1-800-684-3110 Nancy Condon from Virginia online. Three.

Nancy, welcome to Jay Sekulow live. Thank you very much for my phone, I'm listening to healer healer talking about the band on singing and you going to take the case in California just wrote this also cover any other state or if there's some way that that they have to apply for it is what happens depends of your state you come from Virginia. I do not think there is a singing and chanting Dan in place in Virginia, then may know and are there any restrictions on churches right now than in the Metro DC area.

Yeah, I don't buy don't leave anything that specific J Washington DC there still a limit based on the volume attending another something similar in Virginia, but I don't think they get down to the specific prep practices which is obviously an important distinction then I think, based on these cases. By the way, they could be hard-pressed to do it but so Nancy, if we get the case gets decided in the District Court and then in California which will be in Los Angeles area that is appeal to the Ninth Circuit would bind the Ninth Circuit if we have to go or they have to go to the Supreme Court is a decision of the Supreme Court.

I think that would of course that would impact impact the whole nation. Let me say something here. There's been a previous case to the Supreme Court already and and even remember this involving the size issue and it was out of the was out of the West like I was, California, Nevada, but it was again. It was one of these 100 people at minimum is the men as the maximum number. He could have. No matter what size your facility is in there, just as Robert sided with more liberal justice of the court and said that that in fact was constitutionally were not that aghast at second guess the authority not the singing and chanting was more to the heart of not size but the worship experience itself. So I think that will be a distinction in these cases should help that any think you're right. The factor is one thing put that off to the side. The singing and chanting as part of the liturgical function of the church itself, but dogma that teaching the profundity of the spiritual experience that that that is being impacted by prohibiting singing and chanting in the church, not merely the size factor that is a different thing. But when you say make a joyful noise unto the Lord. It doesn't say make a thoughtful mumble unto the Lord, or talk to the Lord, but it says praise the Lord, open your mouth out on the applicable Kunio and Monica Coto. Praise the Lord in the timbrel and dance. In other words, make the joyful noise to the Lord. That is the fundamentals of the faith that's taken from Psalms and adapted from the Jewish addition to the Christian tradition. That's a whole different animal, and one that I think these two cases today give me great hope that that will be upheld by the Supreme Court in Jake maybe even by the Ninth Circuit, usually an aberrant circuit but maybe they too will see the light. So let me ask you this Frank because in the in the previous Challenge least plan right now is not challenging the number restriction which is a bizarre thing in California where it says 25% occupancy which was get a 5000 seat auditorium. You could see basically you note thousand people by 1250 people basic 100, whichever is less image of a 5000 seat amphitheater diamine worship center you only can still see the hundred people and singing and chanting, even if there's only 100 people at that 5000 seat a worship center is still off-limits. Now that the but the court previously held by Justice Roberts joining on this request. First day previously held that that was the stay in place. You think these cases today can help that anything something so I think the same thing. So I want to get your your view on question about it. Thinking is that you and the California regulation situation. You can follow that with you read that thing literally no matter how many read what the side of the congregation. No one is allowed to sing or chant any that same type of narrow restriction doesn't apply to similar secular activities and not that's the thing that I think will get the attention of Supreme Court, particularly Justice Alito through from the time he was on the Third Circuit.

The District Court in Newark New Jersey. This has been one of his specialized areas. The secular exemptions and banning religious practices or uses. That's not gonna fly the Supreme Court if you can have people in the streets.taking a position on that chanting things and singing secular type songs or just chance or slogan. You cannot single out religious singing and chanting for a band that's just not gonna fly Mark on Facebook. She says does this case apply to non-faculty positions as well and I think we explained some of that like it to me there be plenty of religious schools where someone who is a coach at the school who might not have a teaching role might be brought into coach would be need to be someone who shared the work that the same views this should share the same ideology of the school because they would have an important role in crafting those students, especially as they are involved in in in athletics and representing the school if you can also see how those assisting school administrators would also potentially if the school so decided, so the secretaries in this executive assistance to the headmaster to the principles that those individuals to you can see how down the line. There may be a point where no, they don't play a role but certainly it's it's bigger than just faculty. I would certainly bigger than just faculty. I'm trying to think you most of the religious schools, Catholic schools that are the Protestant schools, Jewish schools everybody involved in the school is in a sense, a representative of not only the institution but the religious affiliation Frank of that institution. So how could this go then Private schools, and everybody was employed effectively at the sign an acknowledgment that the Catholic school, and all employees are expected to exemplify Catholic religious principles and exemplify that everything they do is definitely not limited to fact that I think that this case that we're not going to second-guess the decision by the back will continue start taking more of your phone calls, 1-800-684-3110 is couple lines open. If you would jump in the conversation as well. 1-800-684-3110 you over 100,000 people watched the video I did California banning singing churches just post that people sharing it to happen in video rates available in our social media as well. Titian over 100,000 and growing and we need your support. Donate the ACLJ have your donations doubled ACLJ.only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn gold mission will show you how you are personally publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications 40 years later there and what Obama care means to discover many ways your membership is empowering the right question for mission life today online/American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.

Whether it's defending religious freedom.

Protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. Uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress.

ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support for that. We are grateful.

Now there's an opportunity for you to help me way limited time you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge every dollar you donate $10 gift $50 gift becomes 100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we simply would not occur without your generous take part in our matching challenge make a difference in protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms online LJ Jay Sekulow this Jordan secular the right to file 2000 684-3110 Kevin Kelly from California online. One, Kevin.

Welcome to Jay Sekulow live.

My question is I have yet will I came down that the government I think government cannot find a private school if they're not also willing to find a private religious school and wondering what what the ramifications of that are in California.

What we have private things like charter schools and other public schools. Whether that was asking for us to select the statue that was in play in the previous case, which was another great religious liberty, a decision frankly may really positive decision was this, if you are providing a set of funding.

This was vouchers or something like that to parents, school choice, school choice, option, or where you can contribute a certain amount of money for school choice option and you include private schools, you cannot exclude the religious schools, and that's when something by the way, the ACLJ we been advocating for 35 or 40 years and we actually have a campaign on that right now because school choice is a civil right. If you want to impact minority communities that are struggling. Education is the best way to do it.

So that was another just great decision. Having it so specifically is that again that if you if you offer these programs you cannot exclude religious school so another galaxy religious liberty exhibit. Listen, this is what Joe Biden said so this is how he believes and that we talk about the power the teachers unions and the ideas you care more about teachers or the students him to make that decision. America, who do we care more about teachers getting higher salaries and more union protections in Moore's tenure protections. They can't be fired even if there bad teachers or the students who aren't getting improve test scores were continuing to have no future at. I think we choose the students over the teacher. Sorry teacher that you're supposed to be choosing right now Joe Biden take a listen. This is back in March by 30 no privately funded charter school would receive her private trust will receive a penny from none. He wants to even knock out charter charter schools which are a public-private mix it's it's because teachers unions oppose the it's all about teachers. I'm sick and tired of that in America we should stop protecting adults and start protecting children stop protecting adults with unions and tenure and bad teachers and start protecting children. That's our job actually is a sick society and governments as you protect the minors more than anyone else and I think part of that protection is provided in decent schools.

The courts are going in that direction they're going against the direction of people like Joe Biden. I think today� Press comps going on right now today about how to get schools open the play such an important role in our society. We talked about through covert, 19 the breakdown of civil society, leading to the increase in violence, leading to the increase in homicide is no joke. It's real violence is on the rise in New York as we speak.

We talked about the show because civil society is broken down now or post July 4 and were starting to get figure out what is school going to start what is school going to look like is there going to be school that is a key part just like churches and religious organizations of civil society in of the country functioning without it you will see more societal breakdown and more societal break that is not good for anyone, but especially harmful to children okay so tomorrow then we are expecting some to real threats. Actually three cases three pretty big decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, let me say that we argued back in May involving the President's tax returns. The Presidents financial data are two of those cases involve the congressional subpoenas that were issued what Letson anticipation. I know what it is within the Supreme Court by but I suspect it's pretty hydrogen across the board. I suspect there's a few members around here that might have almost as much is yours in those cases, as you DJ. There is definitely there. Deftly the ones that the most people have been looking toward. Although I will tell you I think there was a lot of attention on today's cases as well. I did want to just read your discussion in general DC reaction. This is what leader McCarthy said about the days that the Supreme Court is right to allow the First Amendment principle of religious freedom to prevail over government overreach J even members of the government are our appreciating the fact that the government has been appropriately restrained here but as for tomorrow, I can say that anybody that's in town father, Isaac, and Amanda Supreme Court sent 10 1010 2010 10 o'clock to 1020 was 11, she mentioned, though it's three cases they were together.

One is not there. IT was so explain to people what to be looking for at least right at a really these two cases so there's three cases that we did out two of them involved subpoenas issued by congressional committees to the presence accountants for records including tax returns and other information.

We challenge that saying that there was no legitimate legislative purpose in that request.

This third case involves the district attorney and the district attorney, the County of New York took the same subpoena copied it verbatim from the house committees and served on the same recipient be accountants asking for the same documents for purportedly a different reason. The, the house says they needed for potential legislation. The DA says what he can't legislate. He needs it for investigations. The house says over not investigating were just legislating so we all know what's going on here.

I mean this is this is all about politics, so the court has a couple of options the way they can go we wait we argued, it is my colleague Patrick Strawbridge argued the first two cases they were combined and then I did the third case which actually end up including all three cases because I raise the issue of what was argued previously in the oral argument, so there's three ways to go number one. I could just say the subpoenas are not valid. Rome out done more likely would be levels of scrutiny that were not applied by the lower court. So, for instance, in the Vance case, I would not I would be pleased and would not be surprised if we saw decision that says this although we argued for Presidential temporary immunity. The court as a solicitor Gen.'s and we said in our brief two is not required to reach that issue. We argued two things in our brief, we argued Presidential immunity and heightened scrutiny.

The USB Nixon standard. It's called that a state prosecutor should be held to lease the same standard as a federal prosecutor should reject the hot have a heightened need. Why do you need it. Why do you need it now. What is the point mechanic wait is it essential none of that was analyzed at the district court level here in the Second Circuit said it did not have to be so what could happen is we could see a situation on the Vance case, the DA case where they vacate means removes the lower court decision, the Second Circuit decision remand the case to me and sends it back down to the District Court and says now the standard that were setting forth his heightened scrutiny. We think it has to meet this level of scrutiny now redo this case to see if it does that that would be a a very good win for us it would be a very satisfactory went on the congressional cases they could do the same thing on the site scrutiny or they could simply say Congress was way out of line with these particular requests, but you know what we could guess we could speculate but and around. My suspicion is there are three cases coming tomorrow.

They do them in the order of seniority. I suspect that were going to see these opinions at 1010 and 1020 or maybe 10 o'clock and 1010 by thinking to come out simultaneously the releasing of 10 minutes apart. Yes, I would have full analysis deposit on Jay Sekulow live by these cases involving present trump either directly involved in so you want to deftly be turning into the broadcast by the weather turned in via radio when he turned it on Facebook or periscope and and again you know remember where live at noon Eastern time. Regardless what time you get our radio broadcast near states that you listen to you always.

If you want to get that analysis immediately.

I check out Facebook were alive right way at noon Eastern time support the work of ACLJ ACLJ.org donate today be part of her matching child signed the petition on painting sing churches ACLJ.org the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge every dollar you donate, it will be now $10 gift becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 could make a difference in the world protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online LJ