The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has submitted an amicus brief in a pending Supreme Court case on a law that allows people under domestic restraining orders to be banned from carrying firearms.

"As the Church teaches, and this nation's historical traditions demonstrate, the right to bear arms is not an unqualified licence that must leave vulnerable family members to live in fear," said the bishops' amicus brief, submitted on 22 August.

"Abused victims are precisely the people whom a just government is tasked with protecting. The Second Amendment does not stand as a barrier to their safety."

Read More

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (pictured), in a rare personal statement released on 18th May, expressed his concerns regarding the extension of Title 42 restrictions on immigration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in Arizona v Mayorkas.

The high court on Thursday dismissed as moot a case seeking to preserve Title 42 after the pandemic emergency expired last week.

The public health authority had allowed for the swift expulsion of migrants without allowing them to seek asylum.

Gorsuch voiced his disapproval of states' attempts to prolong Title 42 despite this month's official end of the COVID-19 emergency.

Justice Gorsuch argued that the Supreme Court's decision in December 2022 to extend Title 42 was a serious mistake, as it extended an emergency decree designed for one crisis to address an entirely different situation.

Gorsuch, in an attached statement to the court's unsigned order, more broadly railed against using emergency powers since COVID-19 shut down normal life. He referenced, among other things, lockdown orders, a federal ban on evictions and vaccine mandates.

"Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale," Gorsuch wrote.

Churches targeted during the pandemic

According to Gorsuch, this action implicated the Supreme Court in a significant "disruption" of how laws are formulated and freedoms are upheld.

The Justice condemned the unrestricted and, at times, supported actions of legislative and judicial authorities, both local and executive, across the country.

Gorsuch pointed out that executive officials issued unprecedented emergency decrees, compelling people to remain in their homes, closing businesses, schools and churches, while favouring certain establishments like casinos.

He also criticised the imposition of civil penalties and even criminal sanctions for violating lockdown orders.

Gorsuch specifically highlighted the targeting of churches during the pandemic, with authorities monitoring parking lots, recording licence plates, and threatening criminal charges for attending outdoor services that complied with all social distancing and hygiene requirements.

Referring to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo case, where a Catholic diocese sued the former New York Governor for singling out religious institutions, Gorsuch emphasised that individuals were forced to defend their freedoms in court.

He called upon Congress and state legislatures to re-evaluate the extent of emergency executive powers, lamenting the inadequate response from these bodies during the crisis.

Gorsuch also held the judicial system partly responsible, stating that courts, with a duty to protect liberties, failed to address all infringements and even facilitated the continuation of emergency public-health decrees for secondary purposes.

He stressed the importance of learning from this chapter in history, highlighting the power of fear and the desire for safety, and cautioned against concentrating power in the hands of a few, advocating for robust and uncensored debate.

Sources

Catholic News Agency

The Hill

On April 18, 2023, the court heard oral arguments in Groff v DeJoy, a case addressing an employer's obligation to accommodate religious employees' requests under federal law.

The dispute involves a Christian postal worker who quit his job and sued the US Postal Service after he was unable to find coverage for his Sunday shifts.

Current law requires employers to make accommodations for workers' religious requests only if doing so doesn't impose more than a minimal cost on their business, known as the "de minimis" standard.

Read More

The group is advocating for demonstrations in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.

Their account was restored with no notice or explanation, a Ruth Sent Us spokesperson says.

The group has been organising demonstrations following indications that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn 50 years of federal abortion protections established by Roe v. Wade.

On Saturday, the group posted from a "back up" TikTok account that it had been permanently banned for violating "community guidelines."

"Individuals are notified of our decisions and can appeal them if they believe no violation has occurred," the guidelines say.

"We will temporarily or permanently ban accounts and/or users that are involved in severe or repeated on-platform violations; we may also consider actions on other platforms and offline behaviour in these decisions."

Prohibited activities include incitement to violence, bullying or sharing personal information such as home addresses.

Ruth Sent Us says many comments and individual posts taken down from TikTok have since been restored apart from one featuring bloody pants.

A video of demonstrators pouring red paint on the crotches of their white pants still appears on the Ruth Sent Us TikTok page, but now comes with a content warning.

Ruth Sent Us, named for former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was criticised for "doxxing" (ie releasing private information) after the group posted a map marking the location of the six justices appointed by Republican presidents.

But Ruth Sent Us insists that it never doxxed anyone because the map used geolocation data for the pins, which identified the Virginia and Maryland homes of the six justices.

The "Extremist Justices" map was created by Vigil for Democracy, which is among a constellation of activist groups urging various protests and boycotts in response to the Supreme Court's possible overturn of Roe.

Ruth Sent Us is also urging disruptions of Catholic masses.

After many Washington DC-area churches released statements of concern, Ruth Sent Us responded on Twitter:

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponised prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We'll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic churches have condoned for centuries."

Ruth Sent Us demonstrations frequently feature women in red cloaks and white bonnets - identical to those worn by women in "The Handmaid's Tale". Set in a dystopian future in which abortion is illegal, women are treated as sex slaves and forced to marry and bear children against their will.

In the weeks since the draft decision was leaked, numerous protests have begun pushing for abortion rights.

Ruth Sent Us has released a weekly schedule for demonstrating outside the justices' homes.

Sourcr

• FoxNews

As a result of this move, Biden's stance on the beginning of life is being questioned.

Recently President Biden is reported to have said that he does not believe life begins at conception.

This contradicts previous statements on when life begins.

Biden answered a reporter's question on abortion on Friday. "I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception," Biden said. "I don't agree, but I respect that. I'm not going to impose that on people."

The response is contrary to what he has stated in the past.

In a 2012 vice presidential debate, Biden stated that he believed life began at conception.

"Life begins at conception. That's the Church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life," he said. "But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. I just refuse to impose that on others."

Biden said at the time that he does "not believe that we have a right to tell other people that, women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view, and the Supreme Court. I'm not going to interfere with that."

Focus on his comments came as the "Texas Heartbeat Act" became effective on Sep 1.

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits abortions in the state after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. It can be enforced by private lawsuits. The law went into effect after the Supreme Court did not act on a petition to block it.

The Supreme Court majority ruled that the petitioners in the Texas case - the abortion providers requesting the "heartbeat" law be blocked - had not made a sufficient case for relief.

Biden denounced the decision as "an unprecedented assault on a woman's constitutional rights" to abortion.

Biden said he was directing his White House Gender Policy Council, as well as the White House counsel, "to launch a whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision".

The groups will review "what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties."

The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List praised the court decision.

"The Supreme Court's ruling allows Texas to protect unborn babies with beating hearts while litigation continues," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.

"The Texas legislature, acting on the will of the people, debated and passed this law with the very simple goal of protecting unborn children with beating hearts from death in the womb. This is how democracy works."

Sources

Catholic News Agency

Catholic News Agency

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is one of the first cases of new Supreme Court appointee Amy Coney Barrett and one of the biggest cases of the Court's term.

The case could hand religious conservatives a major victory in a battle over whether the US Constitution protects the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds.

The justices are reviewing Philadelphia's decision to exclude Catholic Social Services (CSS), from its foster care system. The church agency has refused to abide by the city's non-discrimination policy.

CSS argues it has a First Amendment right to decline to certify same-sex couples for foster parenthood. This is based on the right to free exercise of religion, and the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on marriage.

Lori H. Windham, a senior counsel at the law firm representing the religious agency, says there are 28 other foster care agencies in Philadelphia. Three of the agencies have special expertise in serving the LGBTQ community. Windham argues that CSS "would help them to find a foster care agency with expertise in serving LGBTQ couples."

"But Philadelphia's government says that's not enough, and it won't allow any more foster kids to be placed with families who work with Catholic Social Services."

Philadelphia responded in its merits brief that "the Constitution does not grant CSS the right to dictate the terms on which it carries out the government's work," the city said.

"CSS lacks a constitutional right to demand that it be granted a government contract to perform a government function using government funds without complying with the same contractual obligation that every other [foster family care agency] must follow."

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was likely to end in victory for the conservatives even before Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation gave them a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

With Barrett now on the Court, the religious freedom case is overwhelmingly likely to end in a significant defeat for LGBTQ equality.

Sources

• ABA Journal
• Vox
• ACLU

The Court found in favor of two Catholic schools in California, ruling that a "ministerial exception" to government interference applies to teachers in religious schools.

The justices ruled in a 7-2 decision that teachers at Catholic grade schools qualified for the "ministers exception" established by the court in the 2012 Hosana Tabor case.

"The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission," wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.

"Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate."

The argument behind the court case arose when two California Catholic schools did not renew the contracts of two teachers in 2014 and 2015.

In separate cases combined into one by the Supreme Court, the teachers alleged their dismissals were based on disability and age, not poor performance.

Lawyers for the schools argued teachers in Catholic schools were the "primary agents" by which the faith was taught to students.

The argument - and questions from the bench - focused on how broadly the ministerial exception could be applied to the employees of religious schools.

The schools claimed they were exempt from employment discrimination laws because the government cannot interfere in churches' and religious institutions' employment decisions regarding hiring and firing ministers.

The teachers' suits were both dismissed by federal courts, and then reinstated by the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

"There is abundant record evidence that [both teachers] performed vital religious duties," the Supreme Court ruled.

"Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility."

The decision about the religious schools' right to hire and fire their staff comes just weeks after the Court's ruling that employers cannot fire employees because of their sexual orientation or "gender identity." At that time, Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged that religious freedom cases related to the decision would probably come before the Court in the future.

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• Image: eSchool News

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling, which further lowered the wall of separation between the church and the state and will likely affect laws and constitutional decisions in more than two-thirds of the nation that bar public funding for churches and religious schools. Read more

Earlier this month, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Little Sisters and other religious entities seeking relief from having to facilitate contraceptive coverage in employee health insurance.

Churches and other institutions that primarily employ and serve members of the churches are exempt, but the Little Sisters didn't fall within this category, the court ruled.

The Little Sisters objected to having to file a form with federal authorities, under an "accommodation", that triggered a requirement for insurance companies to pay for the contraceptive coverage.

Sister Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial of the order, said the Little Sisters were being asked to choose between adhering to their Catholic faith and continuing to pursue their religious mission of serving the elderly poor.

The order faces heavy fines if it doesn't comply with the mandate.

Continue reading

That was the warning issued by researcher Kaya Oakes after an historic 5-4 US Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry throughout the nation.

The ruling's interpretation of the US Constitution means that states must grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognise lawful same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

Ms Oakes, who studies how young people interact with faith, said the Church risks alienating at least two generations of believers if its leaders issue a "defensive, strident" reaction.

"Catholics under 50 were brought up in a time when same-sex relationships were more and more accepted and presented to them in media, so they're acclimated to that as a fairly normal thing," she said.

"When they hear the opposite message coming from faith leaders, it's alienating."

She said that at the parish level, some priests are good at engaging young adults on this issue.

But, institutionally, the Church's message has been perceived as "rejection, intolerance, and bigotry".

"Even just a change of tone would be a step in the right direction," she said.

The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, called the Supreme Court's decision "a tragic error".

Comparing this to the 1973 Roe V Wade Supreme Court abortion ruling , Archbishop Kurtz said "Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail".

"Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage."

Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafeyette said the ruling would create conscience problems for many Catholics, especially those in public office.

He urged Catholics not to attend same-sex marriage ceremonies.

US bishops have expressed fears as to the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision on the Church's ability to operate in the public sphere.

The Obama administration has hinted that the tax-exempt status of some institutions could be at risk over the issue.

In their dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court justices who made up the minority also expressed fears over Americans' rights to express dissent.

Sources

• Crux
• National Catholic Reporter
• CBS
• Catholic News Agency
• Catholic News Agency
• The Atlantic
• Image: PRI

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that two businesses have protection on religious grounds against a Government mandate requiring coverage of contraceptive services in employee health plans.

The contraception mandate is included in law as part of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court cited the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which aims at preventing legislation that infringes on a person's free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court's five conservative Catholic justices outvoted their four liberal counterparts.

All three women justices on the Supreme Court voted with the minority.

The decision only applies to "closely held" corporations, such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, which were plaintiffs in the case.

Such companies have 50 per cent of their shares owned by five or fewer individuals.

Around 90 per cent of all American businesses qualify as closely-held corporations.

The Supreme Court ruling also insisted that its decision only applied to the issue of contraception.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the Government could find another way for funding contraceptive services for employees in closely held corporations.

But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Ruth Ginsburg said it would cause "havoc" and invite Christian businesses to mount a flurry of challenges to other laws on religious grounds.

The healthcare mandate provides some exemptions for non-profit groups.

But many such groups, including several Catholic dioceses and institutions, claim they do not do go far enough.

At least three dozen cases are still pending across the US challenging the application of the mandate.

The President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, said the Supreme Court did not decide whether the extent of exemptions for non-profit groups also violates the RFRA.

But he praised the Supreme Court ruling as recognising "that Americans continue to follow their faith when they run a family business".

Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain which has 25,000 employees, is run by a Christian family, but it only objects to contraceptives that are abortifacient.

Sources

• National Catholic Reporter (decision)
• National Catholic Reporter (bishop reaction)
• The Telegraph
• Image: ABC News

The court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and refused to rule on a challenge to a Californian court decision in favour of gay marriage.

By clearing the way for same-sex marriage in California, the court effectively increased to 13 the number of states that allow it.

In the first case, the court ruled 5-4 that DOMA violated the constitution insofar as it denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own states.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the marriage laws are controlled by the states, and the federal government cannot deny benefits to people who are legally married under state law.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," said Kennedy, who is a Catholic.

In an angrily worded minority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia — who is also a Catholic — said the majority opinion suggested that anyone opposing same-sex marriage intends "to condemn, demean, or humiliate" others.

Rather, he explained, DOMA "did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history."

"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency," Justice Scalia said, "the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition."

A statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops said: "The court got it wrong."

The bishops said: "The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage."

Sources:

Catholic News Agency

St Louis Review

New York Times

Image: KSFY

Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco is the chairman of the US bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. As the Supreme Court on Tuesday and Wednesday heard arguments in two cases regarding same-sex "marriage," the archbishop is at the forefront of the Church's battle to defend marriage against this latest, and more "extreme" assault.

The archbishop was in Washington on Tuesday to lead the prayer for the first national March for Marriage, which ended precisely at the Supreme Court.

ZENIT spoke with the archbishop by phone on the vigil of the march.

ZENIT: Recent polls report that a slight majority of Americans favor same-sex "marriage," but of course polls are only worth so much. What is your view? Is this battle lost at the level of culture, both here at home and internationally?

Archbishop Cordileone: We've been hearing for 10 years that public opinion has shifted and that the majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex "marriage," but until the last election the traditional concept of marriage has won out every time the people have been able to vote on it. And even now, this last election may indicate some shifting of opinion, but there was another poll that was done the day of, or the day after the election, which indicated that 60% of Americans still favor the traditional concept of marriage. It always depends on how the question is phrased. So, I think that when people understand what marriage really is, what its true purposes are — and that it's not something that's discriminatory, that they come around to appreciate it more. Continue reading

Sources

• Zenit
• Image: San Francisco Chronicle

Marriage equality will now join this list. In a much anticipated move, the US Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear two cases relating to same-sex marriage. The case of Hollingsworth v Perry is from California and relates to whether Proposition 8 (a ballot amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman) is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution.

The other case is Windsor v United States from New York, which will require the Supreme Court to consider whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional. DOMA is a Federal Act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and on this basis denies same-sex married couples the same benefits and programs enjoyed by opposite-sex married under federal laws relating to tax, employment, health and so on.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on these two cases in late March and is likely to deliver its judgments in late June 2013. The cases have many nuances and which way the court will rule is anyone's guess. Indeed, the cases may not even be decided on the merits. Continue reading

Sources

• Paula Gerber in The Conversation
• Image: WDDE 91.1 FM

Paula Gerber is an Associate Professor, Human Rights Law, at Monash University.

The court's ruling, which could have ramifications for marriage laws across the country, is not expected until next June.

The court has chosen to hear two cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

One of the cases argues that Californian voters violated the federal constitution on 2008 when a referendum overrode a decision of the state's Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages.

The other case is against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. The Act received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

President Barack Obama, the first sitting US president to voice support for a redefinition of marriage, last year instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the law in court.

Since the US elections last month, the number of states that authorise same-sex marriages has increased to nine.

"The US Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases is a significant moment for our nation," said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chairman of the bishops' subcommittee for the promotion and defence of marriage.

"Marriage is the foundation of a just society, as it protects the most vulnerable among us, children," he said. "It is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers together.

"We pray for the court, that its deliberations may be guided by truth and justice so as to uphold marriage's true meaning and purpose."

Meanwhile, the bishops' conference has announced a campaign of prayer and fasting for the "rebuilding of a culture favourable to life and marriage and for increased protections of religious liberty".

Sources:

National Catholic Register

New York Times

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Image: WDDE

For years, of course, American leadership has been dominated by white Anglo-Saxon protestants. According to the Times' chart, there was not a non-Protestant or non-white Speaker of the House until 1961. The Supreme Court was dominated by white Protestants until 1994, when for the first time five of the nine justices were non-Protestant or non-white. And while there have been candidates from various backgrounds (namely Catholic) for president and vice president for decades, the number of non-whites or non-Protestants who've actually held those two jobs are still very few: Charles Curtis, Herbert Hoover's vice president, was part Native American; John F. Kennedy was Catholic; Vice President Joe Biden is Catholic; and Barack Obama is African American. (Notably, this is the first year since 1964 that there has been a non-white or non-Protestant on the Republican party ticket.)

Some of these numbers, of course, are simply reflective of politics. George W. Bush, for instance, named three Supreme Court justices, all conservative Catholics, to their post. But surely, some of it is also a sign of progress that we as a country are more accepting of other faiths and other ethnicities. For the first time in history, none of the men at the top of either ticket, Democratic or Republican, are both white and Protestant. Read more

Sources

• Washington Post
• Image: MPRNews