Church and State in the U.S. -- Separation? 

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case from Maine that would weaken the separation between church and state if plaintiffs, parents who want the state to pay for their children's religious education, prevail. In the state of Maine, many school districts are so scarcely populated that they do not have public high schools. To remedy this, parents are allowed to choose public schools in other districts or nonsectarian private schools that provide a “rough equivalent” of a public education. Schools can be affiliated with a religion, but if a school compels students to engage in religious exercise—and discriminates against those who don’t adhere to the faith—it doesn’t qualify for the program under state law. NPR's Nina Totenberg has a report here of oral arguments in the case. 4 min. 23 sec. transcript available.

 More Church and State in France

Another look at church/state questions in France, this time from the National Constitutional Centre in Philadelphia. Two French jurists, Denis Lacorne and Mathilde Philip-Gay and two Americans, Michael Mc Connell and Jonathan Laurence can be seen.  The video can be found here. It was recorded April 13, 2021. 1 hour, no transcript. The National Constitution Centre has added a list of 17 links to references cited during the talk.

Church and State in France

The BBC's programme Sounds on 30 April had a series of interviews with people with opposing positions on the proposed French legislation about what is called religious "separatism". 26 min, no transcript

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks NY's Covid Restrictions on Numbers in Places of Worship

The Court issued a temporary injunction Wednesday saying New York's strict restrictions on the number of people (10) allowed in places of worship in designated Covid hotspots violated the guarantee of religious freedom. In the 5-4 ruling, the new justice, Amy Coney Barrett, voted with 4 other conservative justices. Earlier this year, in cases from Nevada and California, the Court had allowed similar restrictions. The story, on NPR's Morning Edition, can be found here. 3 min., 47 sec.

SCOTUS - end of term

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down the last cases for the October 2019 term. You can find NPR's Nina Totenberg and attorney Tom Goldstein's summary of the Court's year here. 5 min. 36 sec., transcript available soon.
PBS has a summary of the Supreme Court's term here in a video interviewing Paul Clement, Neal Katyal,  and Marcia Coyle, 9 min., 15 sec. transcript available.

Reports of some individual cases decided as the term ended can be found elsewhere on NPR:

• Teachers at religious schools aren't protected by fair employment laws (5 min. 14 sec., transcript available).
• President Trump's claim of absolute immunity under the law is rejected (5 min, 12 sec., transcript available). 
• Nearly half of the state of Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation (4 min., 14 sec., transcript available). 

More on the Oklahoma case from PBS (video) can be found here (4 min. 54 sec., transcript available).

U.S. Constitution in a Series of Short Videos

To learn about the U.S. constitutional system, you can go to the National Constitution Center's collection of 27 educational videos. They are are short (from 2 to 20 minutes) and have subtitles.

Church and State before the U.S. Supreme Court

Even though Chief Justice John Roberts is busy in the afternoons presiding over the Trump impeachement trial, Supreme Court business continues in the mornings. NPR's legal correspondant, Nina Totenberg, reports on oral argument on January 22 before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case arising in Montana which has profound implications for the metaphorical wall between church and state in the U.S. 4 min 30 sec, transcript available.
Totenberg's more detailed report on this case which aired the day before oral argument can be found here. 7 min.
For more information on this case, Espinoza v. Montana, the National Constitution Center podcast We The People can be found here. 57 min., no transcript.

Church and State

The U.S. Supreme Court has entered the traditional count-down to the end of their term when it hands down the decisions on the most difficult cases before their summer recess. It has just issued a ruling on a case involving the separation of church and state, allowing a 1923 cross on public land to remain. NPR's Nina Totenberg has this report. 4 min. 49 sec. Transcript available.
Stay tuned for other important cases to be decided before the end of June.

The History of Free Speech

BBC 4 has a series, The Invention of Free Speech, with three episodes:
free speech and
religion,
sex and
politics. 

28 min., no transcript.

The End of the U.S. Supreme Court OT 2016

The end of June means the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term which traditionally is when the decisions on hard cases, left to the last, are announced. This year, because the Court had only 8 justices for most of the term, not as many controversial cases were heard.

If you want to hear the results for the cases we have talked about in this blog --

You can find the decision in the Slants case  here  (previously presented here and here), The Court held the group could use the name the Slants.

You can find the answer to the question asked in Trinity Lutheran - can the state of Missouri refuse to help a Lutheran preschool rubberize its playground - here. No it can't.

You can hear the result of the shot across the border case here. The Court said it was wrong to grant the border patrol agent qualified immunity from suit and sent the case back to a lower court.

Another decision of interest is about a citizenship rule which distinguished between unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers who had to reside for much longer before being eligible to transmit their citizenship.

Coming up next term, with a full complement of justices, are cases about President Trump's travel ban,  whether a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and gerrymandering.

Presidential Power in the U.S.

NPR’s All Things Considered of May 16 look at the legal questions around President Trump’s use of executive power and its challenges in the courts can be found here. Various law professors give their views on the issue. 3 min 47 sec, transcript available.

Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court Explained

Heightened Scrutiny is a new podcast about the Supreme Court's landmark civil rights cases created by a self-described « attorney and professor who suffers from an incurable obsession with the Supreme Court and constitutional law. » The landmark cases featured so far are Roe v. Wade (abortion), Texas v. Johnson (flag burning and free speech), Loving v. Virginia (law forbidding marriage between blacks and whites), Kelo v. New London (eminent domain), Bowers v. Hardwick (anti-sodomy law), Lawrence v. Texas (anti-sodomy law), Employment Division v. Smith (peyote and religious freedom). 30 to 40 minutes, no transcript.

The Way the U.S. Separates Church and State

NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, about whether the state of Missouri can refuse to help a Lutheran preschool rubberize its playground. The Missouri Supreme Court has barred giving state aid to a school that is owned or controlled by a church where the applicant's mission is spiritual in nature. Last week, before the case was argued, the Missouri governor announced that from now on religious groups will be eligible for grants similar to the one at issue in this case, perhaps making the dispute moot. 7 min.
Totenberg reports here on the oral arguments. You can listen to the arguments (58 min) yourself here (transcript available).

It's U.S. Supreme Court Season Again

From now until the end of June when the justices leave for their various holiday destinations, the U.S. Supreme Court will hand down decisions on the hardest cases before it this term. Monday it decided a case about wearing headscarfs and another about Facebook postings. On NPR’s All Things Considered Nina Totenberg reports here about the two decisions. The first holds that the clothing store Abercrombie & Fitch cannot refuse to hire a young woman who wore a headscarf for religious reasons because this refusal violates a law which forbids employers to discriminate in hiring based on religion. The second reversed the conviction of someone who made threats of violence on his Facebook page. Totenberg's presentation of the second case can be found here. 5 min 38 sec, transcript available.
Update: Totenberg continues with a short piece on the effect on employers of the headscarf decision.  1 min 56 sec. transcript available.

U.S. Supreme Court and Headscarves

Nina Totenberg, NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, was present at the Court on February 25 when a case pitting the retailer Abercrombie & Fitch against a young wearer of a headscarf was argued. The case presents the question of whether the company violated a federal law banning religious discrimination when it rejected the application of Samantha Elauf because she wore a Muslim headscarf. Her report can be found here. 5 min 5 sec, transcript available.

Hobby Lobby and the Corporate Veil

NPR's All Things Considered of August 5 has a story about the consequences of the Hobby Lobby case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court this June. Some law professors say that attributing religious beliefs which merit protection to a corporation is a step toward demolishing the distinction between a corporation and its shareholders - called figuratively "the corporate veil". 5 min 25 sec, transcript available.

A Review of Major Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court 2013-2014 Term

A very clear review of the most important rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2013-2014 term was presented by distinguished legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Frederick Lawrence. They examined at length the Hobby Lobby case (corporations' refusal to provide certain forms of contraception), Town of Greece v. Galloway (public prayer), National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (presidential recess appointments), McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (campaign financing) and McCullen v. Coakley (buffer zone around an abortion clinic) and more briefly Riley v. California (cellphone privacy). The event ended with a discussion of the influence of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark civil rights case handed down 60 years ago. 1h 25 min, no transcript.

Latest on the U.S. Supreme Court and Birth Control

In a decision on Monday (Hobby Lobby), the majority of the Supreme Court said that one of the reasons it was allowing closely held for-profit companies to invoke a religious objection to providing insurance coverage for certain methods of birth control was the existence of another way to accomodate their objections. They could, said the Court, apply for the same exemption that exists for religious nonprofit organizations. Immediately after this, a religious nonprofit applied to the Court for an emergency injunction saying that even applying for this exemption was objectionable because in the end their employees would be getting birth control. On Thursday the Court granted the injunction and three woman Justices issued a very strong dissent from the order. PBS's Newshour has the story. 5 min 19 sec, transcript available.

Review of 2013 Term - U.S. Supreme Court 

NPR's All Things Considered of July 1 has an interview with Nina Totenberg, their Supreme Court correspondent, and Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog who take a look at the work of the Court this term. 8 min 49 sec, transcript available.
Some more stories on NPR on the recent rulings of the Court can be found here and here.
On July 2, Fresh Air interviewed Adam Liptak, the New York Times Supreme Court correspondent about the Court's major decisions this term. 33 min 57 sec, transcript available.

SCOTUSblog has a few videos of interviews outside the Court in the last days of June as important decisions were handed down.

Birth Control and Hypotheticals at the U.S. Supreme Court

NPR's All Things Considered of March 25 has a report about the recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court about a requirement in the Health Care Act that employers provide birth control. Two companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, contend that the Constitution's freedom of religion means that their insurance coverage for employees shouldn't have to provide something that is against their (the companies') religious principles. The story describes a series of hypothetical questions the justices asked the lawyers arguing the cases that are good examples of how legal questions are examined in U.S. law. 6 min 33 sec, transcript available.
More about this case — an interview with Amy Howe and Pete Williams who were in court for the oral arguments. 19 min, no transcript available.
You can find a full transcript of the oral arguments on the Supreme Court website here. The audio recording is now available here.
An analysis of the case by a constitutional law professor, Michael Dorf, can be found here. At the bottom of the page there is an audio link to Professor Dorf's reading of his article. 9 min 21 sec, transcript available.