Mediaboss Marketing

Analysis Law and Policy

Apr 13, 2017, 4:06pm Jessica Mason Pieklo

On just day three of his time on the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch will hear arguments in a case that could reshape the landscape of government funding to religious institutions.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will have been on the job three whole days when he hears arguments in what could be one of the most significant separation of church and state cases to come before the U.S. SupremeCourt in decades.

At first glance,Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer doesnt look like much of a case, let alone one that could bust open the barriers preventing direct government funding of religious institutions. But it is, and that is likelywhy Republicans pushed Gorsuchs confirmation so aggressively. They wanted him on the bench for a reliable conservative vote in Trinity Lutherans favor, and to hopefully bring Justice Anthony Kennedy along with him.

The case, which the Court hears Wednesday, involves a church playground and a Missouri state program that provides grants to help nonprofits buy rubber playground surfaces.The programs goal is to keep used tires out of state landfills and to upgrade playgroundsall good, laudable things.

Trinity Lutheran Church applied for, and was denied, a grant to refurbisha playground for adaycare and preschool it runs. When it was denied funds, the church sued, arguing among other things that its exclusion from the program violates the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause. According to the complaint, being denied grant funding because it is a church discriminates against religious institutions by denying them access to funding that they argue is secular and widely available, thus punishing them for exercising their faith.According to attorneys for the church, the state has no valid First Amendment reason for the exclusion.

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

DONATE NOW

Not so, say attorneys for the State of Missouri, who argue that denying the grant in no way interferes with the church or its members ability to worship or even run its daycare as it sees fit.Instead, the attorneys for the state argue, giving the church grant dollars would be a violation of the Establishment Clause, because then government dollars would be directly supporting the church by helping it improve its grounds.Trinity Lutheran can pave its playground however it wants, the state argues. It just cant do soon the governments tab, because it is a church and itsdaycare and preschool programs are part of that institution.

The state also argues that its grantprogram is not the kind of generally available public benefit that would elevate it to the level of constitutional scrutiny argued for by Trinity Lutheran. That strict scrutinystandard views government action that restricts constitutionally protected activity like religious exercise as inherently suspect. In other words, the government has to provide a very good reason for why it is acting to curb a fundamental constitutional right. The attorneys note in their complaint that most applicants are rejected and that the grant programsfunding islimited. Furthermore, the program treats all religious institutions the same, by not including any of them as grant recipients.

The case boils down, ultimately, to what constitutional test courts should use when judging grant programs like Missouris that have a secular purposein this case lowering environmental impact and upgrading area playgroundsfrom which religious institutions like Trinity Lutheran have historically been excluded,because of First Amendment limitations on government funding of religious institutions and programs. How the Roberts Court answers that question could have wide-reaching consequences,particularly if the Courtexpands the ways in which religious institutions can receivegovernment dollars.

Which brings us back to newly mintedJustice Gorsuch, who has a complicated record on religious liberty decisions.His tendency to rule in favor of religiously affiliated groups could play a pivotal role in theTrinity Lutherandecision, especially since the church has framed itself as a victim of state hostility toward religious believers.

The case has the potential to change the very nature of social services funding at a time whenreligiously affiliated institutions have taken over large areas of the safety-net marketplace, from gobbling up secular hospitals to running nursing homes and childcare facilities. So far the law has been very clear that those institutions are free to exist in that marketplace and provide the services they do. But they cannot expect to have their work entirely subsidized by taxpayers.

But a blurring of the line between private business, religious activity, and government spending can be traced almost directly to Justice Gorsuch and his role in both the Hobby Lobby case while a judge on the Tenth Circuit, as well as the Little Sisters case. In each, Gorsuch laid out the intellectual framework for flipping the script on how courts could approach claims of government infringement on religious rights. Instead of taking a critical but objective look at the nature of the sincerity of the connection between the alleged government imposition and the actual religious practice at issue, Gorsuchs opinions suggested courts should presume both the religious beliefs are sincereandthat the connection to the plaintiffs religious exercise isreal and burdensome. The Roberts Court was, in the context of abortion rights, already sympathetic to this line of thinking when it ruled on behalf of the plump grandmas protesting clinics and harassing patients to strike down a Massachusetts buffer zone law. Gorsuchs line of reasoning could take the Supreme Court even further down that path.

If a secular, for-profit craft store can be excused from incurring a regulatory fine on the basis of a religious objection to birth control, as the Hobby Lobby opinion ruled, wouldnt the inverse logic work for conservatives on the bench? If the government cant punish secular businesses for launching religious objections to regulations, as was the case in Hobby Lobby, how can the government punish religious institutions by excluding them from certain spending programs that those religious institutions claim do not go to religious practice?

In other words, what should stop a state from directly funding a religious group that also provides secular services? Why cant a church get a government grant to improve its facilities?

These questions areseductively simple, as arethe answers. The First Amendments Establishment Clause and the case law interpreting it saysthat a state government cannot use its spending power to favor one religion over another, either directly or indirectly.

Butwhat the Hobby Lobby decision madeclear is that whenthe line between religion and government spendingis re-framed as the state punishing believers by enforcing its laws,the Roberts Court will likely side with the religious claimants.

Ive written about Gorsuch as a key actor in pushing corporate religious rights under Hobby Lobby, and his record here is clear. If there is a way to both insulate corporations and find a way to expand the reach of evangelicalism into popular culture, than Gorsuch is the legal brains to pave that way. Will that charming personality of his, though, be enough to sway Kennedy, who is likely the critical fifth vote the conservatives need to get a win here?

Well know sometime this summer when the Court releases its opinion.

See the original post:
Will Gorsuch Reshape the First Amendment This Summer? - Rewire

In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, was prevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.

Yes, Arabic. The language spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide, making it one of the top five languages in the world and reportedly the fastest growing in the U.S., was the culprit.

My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simply speaking Arabic on an airplane was grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities, watch lists, and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.

However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience of being Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of the surge in hate crimes but little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.

At a New Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump, We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.

One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, in both incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.

Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic.

In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.

I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.

Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.

The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by the White Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded their fourth resistance flyer.

Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving an increase in incidents of hate and bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.

After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.

If you want your own sticker copies of the First Amendment translated in Arabic, English and Spanish, they are available for pre-order here.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic ... - ACLU (blog)

The American Civil Liberties Union is sending a powerful, multilingual message to President Donald Trump about civil rights by postingthe First Amendment in English, Spanish and Arabic on billboards across the country.

The goal of its We the People campaign is to send a message to Trump that Americans rights particularly those of immigrants, Latinx and Muslims are protected by the Constitution.

Trump came to power on a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, and it was particularly bad when it came to Muslims, ACLU communications staffer Stacy Sullivan told The Huffington Post. We thought this would be a good time to remind the public and Trump that the First Amendment applies to Muslims and Latinos, and everyone else in this country, too.

The First Amendment protects peoples right to practice their religion without facing discrimination. It also protects free speech, a free press and the right to protest.

The signs simply write out the language of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first signs went up last week in Times Square in New York, as well as at 30 bus stops in Washington, D.C. Another billboard went up in Los Angeles on Tuesday. The group is aiming to put up more signs in other cities and in other languages in the coming months, Sullivan said.

The ACLU chose to post the signs in Spanish and Arabic specifically because American and immigrant communities that speak those languages particularly the Muslim and Latinx communities are not only numerous in the U.S. but also are most under threat, said Sullivan.

The Trump administration has targeted Muslims with two executive orders barring travel from Muslim-majority countries which have both been blocked by the courts and Latinos with deportations and plans to build a wall on the Mexican border.

Its a way for us to state our solidarity with those communities under threat, Sullivan told HuffPost, and to say what [Trump is] doing is really un-American.

ACLU

While the signs are a pointed response to Trumps anti-immigrant policies, they are also a commentary on the presidents attacks on the other First Amendment freedoms: of the press, speech and protest.

Trump hascalled the media the enemy of the American people and attacked reputable media outlets, including The New York Times and CNN, bylabeling them fake news.

Trump has also criticized people who exercise their right to free speech and protest by suggesting that anyone who burns an American flag as a form of protestshould lose citizenship.

From his attempted Muslim ban to his calls for media suppression to his remarks endorsing the use of violence against those who protest against him, President Trump has shown disdain for the rights and freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a news release. We thought it was a good time to remind people of these rights.

ACLU

The We the People campaign, developed by ad agency Emergence Creative for the ACLU, is simply about sending a message to Trump that peoples rights need to be upheld and to all people in America that their rights are protected by law.

This campaign is intended to remind people that the Constitution is for all of us. It doesnt matter who you are or what language you speak, Romero said in the release. We the People means everyone.

For HuffPosts #LoveTakesAction series, were telling stories of how people are standing up to hate and supporting those most threatened. Know a story from your community? Send news tips to lovetips@huffingtonpost.com.

Go here to see the original:
ACLU Trolls Trump With First Amendment Billboards | The ... - Huffington Post

The American Civil Liberties Union has released giant billboards featuring the First Amendment, which provides the right to freedom of speech and press. Written in Arabic, Spanish and English, the ACLU's signs cover Times Square, as well as 30 bus stops in Washington, D.C. and a large spot in Los Angeles.

As part of their "We the People" campaign, the nationwide billboards spell out the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

ACLU's Stacy Sullivan spoke about the project with Huffington Post, saying, "Trump came to power on a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, and it was particularly bad when it came to Muslims.Its a way for us to state our solidarity with those communities under threat and to say what [Trump is] doing is really un-American."

The advocacy organization chose to run the signs in Spanish and Arabic, as well as English, because Muslim and Latinx groups are especially under threat in Trump's America. They also shared a video to accompany the signs with future plans to spread the campaign to more cities and in more languages.

Continued here:
ACLU Protests Trump with First Amendment Billboards Written in Arabic & Spanish - Out Magazine

Dan Shelley knows that responsible, honest journalists are under heavy fire, and he wants to enlist the public to draw some of it away.

Shelley, the former SVP of digital content strategy for iHeartMedia, who takes over from the retiring Mike Cavender as executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association this September, is working with a new First Amendment Task Force inside the organization to help do that. It plans to meet with leaders of TV and radio station groups at the NAB Show April 22-27 to set priorities and public messaging.

Story continues after the ad

In this interview with TVNewsCheck's special projects editor, Michael Depp, he talks about the strong stand that the task force is looking to make against assaults on the First Amendment and press access to government. He says honing a public message to that end is among the top priorities, along with emphasizing the particularly important work being done by local journalists.

An edited transcript:

Generally speaking, how do you see the threat level facing the First Amendment and press freedom at this moment?

Were forming our Voice of the First Amendment Task Force because its clear over the last couple of years that there has been an unprecedented attack on responsible journalism from all over the political spectrum, from all parts of the country, because of the increasingly divisive environment that exists in our country today.

Because things have become so polarized, responsible journalism has really taken an unfair hit. And so thats why in conjunction with radio, television and digital news industry influencers and executives, were making what we believe will be a very strong stand in defense of responsible journalism and to help the public understand better why it matters in their lives.

Media companies are doing, by and large, an outstanding job of calling the balls and strikes, keeping their noses down and not backing down when confronted with resistance from government officials and folks who dont want the public to know the real story. In many cases [journalists are] risking persecution, prosecution and jail time to make sure the public has access to the truth and knows whats going on in their communities.

To what extent is President Trump a factor?

It depends on whom you ask. Every time he or one of his surrogates uses the term fake news to counter a responsible news story that they just dont like, it certainly doesnt help our reputation with people who tend to believe as they do.

Its certainly a significant portion of the issue, but that in and of itself is not a problem. For years, the news media have not been held in the highest esteem, probably since the days following Watergate.

What are the task force's priorities?

Priority one is to work with members of our industry to make sure that they help us hone our message so that when we go to the public we can highlight responsible journalism on the national and particularly the local level because so many times all of the news media gets wrapped up in the same package with the same bow on it. That includes local journalists, who are exposing issues and problems that otherwise would not see the light of day. That exposure leads to solutions in many cases.

Sunlight always is the best antiseptic for corruption. RTDNA pledges to do a much better job of highlighting examples of where that works. We have always been a very strong voice and fierce advocate of the First Amendment and FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] issues.

With public mistrust of the media at an all-time high, how can the public be better enlisted to stand with the news media? What can media companies be doing more aggressively there?

We are fairly deep into the process of formulating plans to make sure that members of the public understand that when the local TV, radio or digital journalist is asking hard questions, its not because they want to be difficult or belligerent in any way, its because they want members of the community to know whats going on around them and shed more light.

Whats the message that the public needs to hear vis--vis press freedom?

The message they need to hear is that all journalists are doing their jobs, sometimes at great risk to themselves, to make sure that members of the public are part of a more informed and educated society that will help them make even better decisions and tangible improvements in their communities.

President Trump has flirted with revising libel laws in his tweets. Whats the appropriate response to those threats for now?

Theres only so much in reality that a president can do. There is no federal libel law. So its got to be a state-by-state basis. So wherever there is a movement in any state to change libel laws, thats a big First Amendment problem for us, and we, along with other journalism organizations and leaders and influencers in our industry, are willing and prepared to fight those efforts as best we possibly can. Thats an extreme danger to the First Amendment.

More:
RTDNA Ramping Up First Amendment Efforts - TV News Check