Conservative religious advocacy organizations roundly praised the Supreme Court term that ended June 28, saying they are pleased with the way the court resolved several high-profile church-state disputes.
The court left high school students with considerable leeway to voice religious opinions, cleared the way for interest group-funded campaign ads and shielded the White House’s faith-based initiative from challenge in the courts. The justices also upheld the constitutionality of a federal ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions.
“Overall, we had a very good term with the partial-birth abortion case and the Wisconsin Right to Life case all being decided in our favor,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, referring to the campaign finance opinion.
In a friend of the court brief filed in the campaign finance case, Sekulow’s office urged the justices to end the prohibition on issue advocacy ads in the days leading up to an election. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cited that brief in rejecting arguments by the law’s defenders that the intent of the organization should be considered.
“Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,” Roberts wrote in his opinion.
In the student speech case, Morse v. Frederick, the court held that public school officials do not violate a student’s free speech rights when they prohibit displays that promote illegal drug use. In the ruling, however, the court majority suggested that schools could not similarly suppress speech that voiced real political or religious points of view.
The decision appeared to satisfy religious groups, which had expressed concern that a ruling could give schools power to limit student religious expression that officials find offensive.
The case left wiggle room for future litigation about religious expression in public schools, said Ira C. Lupu, co-director of legal research for the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy.
“The kid in this case had a goofball message,” Lupu said, referring to student Joseph Frederick’s 14-foot banner that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
“But when a kid shows up with a serious political or religious message, that’s no longer the kid being the goofball. And you can see how the argument will go,” he said. “The school will say that this undermines its ability to enforce its tolerance policy and the other side will say that this is religious or political speech.”
Meanwhile, in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, the court barred taxpayer challenges to executive branch funding of arguably religious activities, such as faith-based social services. Taxpayers are still free — for the moment — to use federal courts to challenge congressional funding decisions.
But Congress could get around that distinction, said Douglas Laycock of the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, by simply funneling money to the executive branch and letting it specify how the money will be used.
Share with others: