Although many people are still processing the recent same-sex marriage ruling, the Supreme Court continues this week to issue order and rulings. Here are five other recent rulings and decisions handed down by the Court in the past two weeks that you should know about:
______
The case: Zubik v. Burwell
What it’s about: Whether a group of religious organizations in Pennsylvania that oppose the use of contraceptives and/or abortifacients must comply with the Obamacare mandate to pay for them for their employees.
The Court’s decision: The Court issued an order that if the groups provide some type of notice to Health and Human Services that they want and are entitled to a religious exemption from the mandate, the government may not enforce the mandate directly against them, while the Court is pondering whether to review the case itself. Just as several other religious objectors (including Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College) have been allowed an exemption, these groups will likely be offered a permanent exemption from the mandate.
______
The case: Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
What it’s about: The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offers state residents a choice between general-issue and specialty license plates. Those who want the state to issue a particular specialty plate may propose a plate design, comprising a slogan, a graphic, or both. If the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board approves the design, the state will make it available for display on vehicles registered in Texas.
The Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and its officers filed suit against the DMV arguing that the rejection of their proposal for a specialty plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag violated the Free Speech Clause.
The Court’s decision: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Texas’s specialty license plate designs constitute government speech, and thus Texas was entitled to refuse to issue plates featuring a Confederate battle flag. As the ruling notes, “When government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.”
______
The case: Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina
What it’s about: In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized an optional “Choose Life” specialty license plate. The state offers other specialty plates that also fund causes benefitting the state and that are consistent with its public policies. The ACLU challenged the law, arguing that the “Choose Life” plate must be censored because the state did not also issue a license plate that encourages abortion, even though encouraging abortions is contrary to the state’s interests and public policy.
The Court’s decision: Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that had allowed the ACLU to censor the “Choose Life” message. The Supreme Court vacated the decision and ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the high court’s June 18 decision in another license plate case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (see above).
______
The case: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona
What it’s about: The town of Gilbert, Arizona has a municipal code that prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but has differing restrictions on political, ideological and directional signs. Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed, whose Sunday church services are held at various temporary locations in and near the Gilbert, posted signs early each Saturday bearing the church name and the time and location of the next service. The church usually left the signs up until around midday on Sundays.
The church signs were considered “temporary directional signs” and were cited for exceeding the time limits and for failing to include an event date on the signs. Unable to reach an accommodation with the city of Gilbert, Reed and his church filed suit, claiming that the city code abridged their freedom of speech.
The Court’s decision: The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the church. All nine justices agreed that the distinctions drawn by the ordinance were impermissible, though three disagreed with the majority’s rationale. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said, “Content-based laws — those that target speech based on its communicative content — are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.”
______
The case: Whole Woman’s Health, et al. v. Cole, Comm’r, TX DHS, et al.
What it’s about: The Texas legislature had passed tough new restrictions on abortion providers that would have forced many clinics to close and made abortions harder to obtain. The law was scheduled to take effect this Wednesday. Several abortion clinics challenged the law, which was upheld by a circuit court.
The Court’s decision: The Court granted an order allowing the clinics to stay open pending appeal of their challenge to the Texas law. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito said they would have denied the stay application from abortion advocates.) If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case in the fall, the order blocking enforcement will expire and the clinics will close.
Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?
In an age of faith deconstruction and skepticism about the Bible’s authority, it’s common to hear claims that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda. And if the Gospels are shown to be historically unreliable, the whole foundation of Christianity begins to crumble.
