English
Korean
Spanish
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Supreme Court issued a string of major victories for religious liberty during its 2020-21 term, even if it disappointed the faith-based community by refusing to hear a handful of cases.
The justices in June declined to take up a case involving a Christian florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who lost an anti-discrimination case in her home state of Washington after she refused to design an arrangement for a same-sex wedding.
The Supreme Court also denied a petition by the North American Mission Board (NAMB) to review its ongoing case involving a lawsuit filed by a former Southern Baptist state executive director. NAMB’s legal representative, First Liberty Institute, argued the case involves religious freedom. NAMB was seeking to overturn a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the case to proceed.
Even so, the term was a successful one for supporters of religious liberty in other cases.
On multiple occasions, the justices sided with churches that were fighting COVID-19 restrictions on worship services. In one such instance, in April, the majority ruled that states cannot treat secular activities more favorably than religious ones during the pandemic.
Advocates for religious liberty also won several other cases, including one involving the crossroads of religious freedom and LGBT rights.
Luke Goodrich, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in June the Supreme Court had sided with religious freedom in 18 of the last 19 cases that went to oral arguments—14 of which were unanimous wins.
“Religious freedom is on a massive, decade-long winning streak at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Below are summaries of three victories for religious liberty from the 2020-21 term:
A victory for religious liberty in an LGBT rights case
One year after handing the LGBT community a significant victory in an employment case, the Supreme Court in June delivered a major win to religious freedom advocates.
The justices, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it tried to force a local charity, Catholic Social Services (CSS), to place children in LGBT homes. The city had severed a foster care contract with Catholic Social Services after the latter said its religious beliefs prevented it from working with same-sex couples.
The ruling involved a rare agreement on LGBT issues between the court’s six-member conservative bloc and the three-member liberal bloc.
“The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “As an initial matter, it is plain that the City’s actions have burdened CSS’s religious exercise by putting it to the choice of curtailing its mission or approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.”
Three conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—said the court’s ruling was too limited. Specifically, they would have overturned a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, that has been used by some courts to limit religious liberty. In that case, the justices ruled that a law is constitutional if it is neutral and if there is a “legitimate” government interest in passing the law.
“The particular appeal before us arises at the intersection of public accommodations laws and the First Amendment; it involves same-sex couples and the Catholic Church,” Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Alito and Thomas. “Dodging the question today guarantees it will recur tomorrow. These cases will keep coming until the Court musters the fortitude to supply an answer. Respectfully, it should have done so today.”
The case was Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
"Religious freedom is on a massive, decade-long winning streak at the Supreme Court."
A win for donors to religious groups
On its last day of the term, the high court handed a win to faith-based organizations and nonprofits when it ruled that the state of California could not require such groups to disclose the names and addresses of their biggest donors.
At issue was a California law that allowed the state’s attorney general to force organizations to disclose their major donors listed on IRS Schedule B (Form 990).
Although the law requires the list of donors to remain confidential, some lists have inadvertently been posted online, the court’s majority opinion noted.
The decision broke along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservatives forming the majority.
The lawsuit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal group, and by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which was founded by the Koch brothers.
Faith-based groups argued that such a law can have a chilling impact on donors, especially when groups take sides on hot-button social issues.
“The disclosure requirement ‘creates an unnecessary risk of chilling’ in violation of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. “The petitioners here, for example, introduced evidence that they and their supporters have been subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence.”
The California law, Roberts said, violates the First Amendment.
Alliance Defending Freedom represented the Thomas More Law Center.
“The Supreme Court has confirmed that every American is free to peacefully support causes they believe in without fear of harassment or intimidation,” said ADF senior counsel John Bursch. “Public advocacy is for everyone, not just those able to weather abuse. Forced donor disclosure is a threat to everyone and discourages both charitable giving and participation in the marketplace of ideas. The court correctly upheld the First Amendment’s promise of the freedom to associate with like-minded groups, which includes the right to donor privacy.”
The case was Americans for Prosperity Foundation vs. California.
A case involving 3 Muslims could benefit Christians
The Supreme Court in December ruled that three Muslim men can sue government employees for financial relief because they were placed on the No-Fly List.
The men—living legally in the U.S.—had been placed on the list after they refused to act as informants against other Muslims. The trio then argued the government had violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). They also sued the federal agents for monetary damages.
Legal experts said the ruling can have a broader impact on religious liberty beyond the Muslim community.
“It’s a victory for religious liberty, primarily because it will stand as a warning to federal officials that they have to be careful to respect religious freedom,” Stephanie Taub, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, told Christian Headlines. “This decision held that federal officials can be held personally accountable when they knowingly violate clearly established religious liberty rights. So essentially, when we’re talking about federal officials that egregiously violate the law to harm people of faith, then they can be on the hook for monetary damages.”
The case was Tanzin v. Tanvir.
A pro-life victory at SCOTUS
Although the high court did not hear oral arguments in any abortion-related case, it issued a ruling upholding a pro-life policy from the Trump era.
At issue was a Food and Drug Administration policy under the Trump administration requiring pregnant women to visit a doctor before acquiring pills for a chemical (or medical) abortion. A judge had ruled the pills could be distributed via mail during the pandemic, but the Trump administration opposed the judge’s decision and filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In January, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines, issued a stay on the judge’s decision and reinstated the requirement.
The Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama and Trump administrations all required a doctor’s visit before obtaining the abortion pill.
The Biden administration subsequently removed the doctor’s visit requirement, but the court’s ruling nevertheless indicated where the court may stand on abortion-related cases.
