Opinion

Department of Justice says government can’t restrict funding based on religious status #Catholic The U.S. Department of Justice this week said that the government’s practice of restricting federal funding from religious activities is “presumptively unconstitutional,” paving the way for greater public funding of religious groups.Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in an Aug. 25 memorandum opinion issued to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services. In its 2004 decision Locke v. Davey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public authorities are free to withhold funding from programs and activities that are explicitly religious in nature. In its memorandum, however, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said restricting federal funding based on either the religious status of an organization or the use of funds for religious purposes is “not required” under the U.S. Constitution. Such restrictions “discriminate based on anticipated religious use without any compelling governmental interest,” the memorandum said, and as a result they “violate the Free Exercise Clause.” “Use-based religious restrictions on generally available federal funding programs are presumptively unconstitutional,” the document said.The memorandum specifically addressed programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which controls billions of dollars in federal funding. It was not immediately clear if the directive applied to other federal departments. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The religious freedom legal group First Liberty, meanwhile, hailed the memorandum as “a major victory for religious liberty.” Faith-based organizations and schools “can now apply for and utilize federal grants without scrubbing the religious aspects of their programs,” the group said. First Liberty argued that opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel “serve as binding legal guidance for the executive branch,” meaning the memo “effectively instructs all federal agencies to rewrite their grant-making rules to align with this new standard.”The group noted that one of its network attorneys is Joshua Davey, part of the namesake of the 2004 Supreme Court case that established the precedent of restricting federal funds for religious activities and groups. That decision “has never been formally overturned,” First Liberty said, but “that could change in the very near future.”
Read More

Department of Justice says government can’t restrict funding based on religious status #Catholic The U.S. Department of Justice this week said that the government’s practice of restricting federal funding from religious activities is “presumptively unconstitutional,” paving the way for greater public funding of religious groups.Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in an Aug. 25 memorandum opinion issued to the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services. In its 2004 decision Locke v. Davey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public authorities are free to withhold funding from programs and activities that are explicitly religious in nature. In its memorandum, however, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said restricting federal funding based on either the religious status of an organization or the use of funds for religious purposes is “not required” under the U.S. Constitution. Such restrictions “discriminate based on anticipated religious use without any compelling governmental interest,” the memorandum said, and as a result they “violate the Free Exercise Clause.” “Use-based religious restrictions on generally available federal funding programs are presumptively unconstitutional,” the document said.The memorandum specifically addressed programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which controls billions of dollars in federal funding. It was not immediately clear if the directive applied to other federal departments. A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The religious freedom legal group First Liberty, meanwhile, hailed the memorandum as “a major victory for religious liberty.” Faith-based organizations and schools “can now apply for and utilize federal grants without scrubbing the religious aspects of their programs,” the group said. First Liberty argued that opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel “serve as binding legal guidance for the executive branch,” meaning the memo “effectively instructs all federal agencies to rewrite their grant-making rules to align with this new standard.”The group noted that one of its network attorneys is Joshua Davey, part of the namesake of the 2004 Supreme Court case that established the precedent of restricting federal funds for religious activities and groups. That decision “has never been formally overturned,” First Liberty said, but “that could change in the very near future.”

unitedyam

Such restrictions on federal funding are made “without any compelling government interest,” the Justice Department said in a memorandum opinion.

Read More
Catholic legal group criticizes Trump’s birthright-citizenship order as bishops plan to monitor #Catholic A Catholic legal group criticized President Donald Trump’s executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is reviewing and monitoring them.The executive orders issued Aug. 6 direct the government to stop allowing foreign visitors to enter the United States on short‑term visas for the purpose of giving birth and impose a narrower limit on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a broader attempt to end citizenship for children born to people in the country temporarily or unlawfully.One executive order would end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are not U.S. citizens and engage in a commercial transaction or fraudulent activity to ensure the mother is inside U.S. territory to give birth. It also would end birthright citizenship for a child born of a parent considered an “alien enemy,” including members of terrorist organizations.A second executive order titled “Ending Birth Tourism” authorizes federal departments to implement rules that prevent the entry of pregnant foreign women seeking to give birth in the United States and allow removal if they enter the country. The order refers to noncitizens entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth on American soil and efforts from a foreign national to coordinate such entries.Under existing State Department guidance, consular officers can deny a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa if they believe the applicant’s primary purpose is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child.Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), criticized the birthright citizenship executive order in a statement to EWTN News.“The Supreme Court has already spoken: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gallagher said.“This latest attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent settled law only creates needless fear and uncertainty for immigrant families,” she added. “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and welcome the stranger — not seek new ways to exclude them.”The USCCB has not taken a clear position on the executive orders yet, but it is monitoring how they are enforced and potential judicial proceedings.“The USCCB supports the application of constitutional principles and the rule of law in a manner consistent with the God-given dignity of every human person,” USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News.“We’re reviewing the executive orders and will continue to monitor for administrative actions taken and possible judicial proceedings concerning their implementation,” she said.In June, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects automatic birthright citizenship with few exceptions. The protection extends to children who are born to people who are in the country unlawfully.Although the majority opinion did not directly address “birth tourism,” it did clearly say birthright citizenship applies to the children of parents who are “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country.The “birth tourism” concern appeared in the dissents authored by both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s opinion protects birthright citizenship to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’” though saying he does not not agree with the ruling.Thomas wrote in his dissent that people have taken advantage of birthright citizenship through “birth tourism” and said there are companies that “collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”However, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that words like “temporary” and “lawful” do not appear in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “For a simple reason: they did not matter.”Ashley Feasley, a legal expert for the Immigration Law and Policy Initiative at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News she believes the executive orders are “an attempt to undermine” the Supreme Court.“Although they will almost certainly face legal challenge, in the interim they will place a profound burden on some of the most vulnerable migrants, pregnant women, and on the officers who work diligently to defend our borders,” she said.“Requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to interrogate women, many of whom have legal visas, about their pregnancies, even turning them away from ports of entry without clearly defined criteria for doing so, risks harming both woman and unborn child and diverts DHS officers' attention from the vital missions of border security and trade facilitation,” Feasley said. Legal challenges have not yet been filed.
Read More

Catholic legal group criticizes Trump’s birthright-citizenship order as bishops plan to monitor #Catholic A Catholic legal group criticized President Donald Trump’s executive orders to restrict birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is reviewing and monitoring them.The executive orders issued Aug. 6 direct the government to stop allowing foreign visitors to enter the United States on short‑term visas for the purpose of giving birth and impose a narrower limit on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a broader attempt to end citizenship for children born to people in the country temporarily or unlawfully.One executive order would end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are not U.S. citizens and engage in a commercial transaction or fraudulent activity to ensure the mother is inside U.S. territory to give birth. It also would end birthright citizenship for a child born of a parent considered an “alien enemy,” including members of terrorist organizations.A second executive order titled “Ending Birth Tourism” authorizes federal departments to implement rules that prevent the entry of pregnant foreign women seeking to give birth in the United States and allow removal if they enter the country. The order refers to noncitizens entering the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth on American soil and efforts from a foreign national to coordinate such entries.Under existing State Department guidance, consular officers can deny a B‑1/B‑2 visitor visa if they believe the applicant’s primary purpose is to give birth in the U.S. to obtain citizenship for the child.Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC), criticized the birthright citizenship executive order in a statement to EWTN News.“The Supreme Court has already spoken: birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution,” Gallagher said.“This latest attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent settled law only creates needless fear and uncertainty for immigrant families,” she added. “Catholic social teaching calls us to uphold the dignity of every person and welcome the stranger — not seek new ways to exclude them.”The USCCB has not taken a clear position on the executive orders yet, but it is monitoring how they are enforced and potential judicial proceedings.“The USCCB supports the application of constitutional principles and the rule of law in a manner consistent with the God-given dignity of every human person,” USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi told EWTN News.“We’re reviewing the executive orders and will continue to monitor for administrative actions taken and possible judicial proceedings concerning their implementation,” she said.In June, the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment of the Constitution protects automatic birthright citizenship with few exceptions. The protection extends to children who are born to people who are in the country unlawfully.Although the majority opinion did not directly address “birth tourism,” it did clearly say birthright citizenship applies to the children of parents who are “unlawfully or temporarily present” in the country.The “birth tourism” concern appeared in the dissents authored by both Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.Alito, in his dissent, wrote that he believed the majority’s opinion protects birthright citizenship to “the children of ‘birth tourists,’” though saying he does not not agree with the ruling.Thomas wrote in his dissent that people have taken advantage of birthright citizenship through “birth tourism” and said there are companies that “collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”However, in the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that words like “temporary” and “lawful” do not appear in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment: “For a simple reason: they did not matter.”Ashley Feasley, a legal expert for the Immigration Law and Policy Initiative at The Catholic University of America, told EWTN News she believes the executive orders are “an attempt to undermine” the Supreme Court.“Although they will almost certainly face legal challenge, in the interim they will place a profound burden on some of the most vulnerable migrants, pregnant women, and on the officers who work diligently to defend our borders,” she said.“Requiring Department of Homeland Security officials to interrogate women, many of whom have legal visas, about their pregnancies, even turning them away from ports of entry without clearly defined criteria for doing so, risks harming both woman and unborn child and diverts DHS officers' attention from the vital missions of border security and trade facilitation,” Feasley said. Legal challenges have not yet been filed.

unitedyam

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) criticized an executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The U.S. Catholic bishops are reviewing and monitoring the order.

Read More
Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.
Read More

Federal court hears arguments on Oklahoma’s ban for religious charter schools #Catholic A federal court heard oral arguments on Aug. 5 about whether an Oklahoma law banning religious charter schools violates the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.Oklahoma established a charter school system in 1999, which provides public funds for privately run K–12 schools to which parents can send their children instead of a public school operated by a school district. The law only allows “nonsectarian” applicants, which prevents any participation from schools that have a religious identity.In 2023, the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board (SCSB) approved an application from a proposed Catholic charter school — St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School — which led to a legal challenge from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who opposed religious charter schools.The Oklahoma Supreme Court sided against the school, finding that charter schools are public schools and that public schools must be secular. St. Isidore appealed this to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that resulted in a 4-4 deadlock with no majority opinion because Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a conflict of interest and recused herself.Amid no clear guidance from the federal courts, a Jewish organization — National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation — filed an application to set up a charter school, which was denied. The group, represented by lawyers at the Becket Fund, filed a new lawsuit and asked a federal district court to require the SCSB to consider religious applicants.“Oklahoma makes room in its charter program for schools of all shapes and sizes, from those focused on science and fine arts to language immersion and classical education,” Daniel Chen, a Becket attorney representing the Jewish foundation, said in a statement.“The one it refuses to make room for is a faith-based school,” Chen added. “That is religious discrimination, plain and simple, and the state deserves a failing grade for it.”Chen told EWTN News that Becket is asking the federal court to immediately allow National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation to set up a charter school, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent that requires government programs to allow religious institutions the same access as secular institutions.“They’re private actors,” he said. “And because they’re private actors, they cannot be excluded from participating in a public benefits program.”Chen said the federal district court is not bound by the precedent of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because that is a state court, so it could rule in favor of the school. He also said if the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, he hopes Barrett can weigh in to break the 4-4 deadlock.“We’re hoping that [for] our case, there wouldn’t have to be any recusals,” he said.School board’s hands are tiedAlthough the charter school board denied the application from the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, one of its lawyers at First Liberty Institute explained to EWTN News that its hands are tied by the statute and the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision.“They’re following that order,” said Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty and the lawyer representing SCSB. “But [they] would be happy if the federal court didn’t [require the school board] to engage in that kind of discrimination.”Sasser said the SCSB does not want to exclude an applicant “simply because it’s religious” and would rather evaluate applicants “just based on the merits.” But he said the order “makes them exclude religious schools just because they’re religious.”“They want to maximize all of the various choices and opportunities for parents,” he added.Sasser said he hopes the question goes to the U.S. Supreme Court again so “we’ll get an answer — a real answer.” He said it would provide more clarity for the school board, which “needs an answer.”John Meiser, director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic at the University of Notre Dame and the lawyer who represented St. Isidore at the Supreme Court, told EWTN News that the question ultimately comes down to whether charter schools are private or public institutions.In Oklahoma, he said charter schools “are called public schools” and that label “introduces a confusion that I don’t think would be present if they chose any other word.”He said Supreme Court precedent is clear that religious institutions must have equal access to government programs available to private institutions, but if a charter school is a “government school,” that “doesn’t apply” because the government “doesn’t and can’t run religious schools.”In spite of the label, Meiser said charter schools in Oklahoma are “formed and designed and run by private groups” and people who work there “are private employees.” He said the structure “looks just like a government contract” and funding from the government “doesn’t turn all those private contractors into the government itself.”“The dispute is really just about, ‘Well is a charter school in some way different?’” he said.Although Meiser said he is not aware of any ongoing Catholic efforts to recreate a charter school, he said that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s constitutional arguments for equal access “would presumably apply to all religious operators of schools, and so it would open the door to a Catholic charter school or other religiously based charter school.”Attorney general stands firmDrummond, who remains Oklahoma’s attorney general, is standing firm in opposing the creation of religious charter schools and is fighting against National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s efforts."This matter was resolved when the state Supreme Courtʼs ruling to prevent taxpayer funded religious charter schools was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court last year,” Leslie Berger, press secretary for the attorney general’s office, told EWTN News.Drummond has also criticized the charter school board in public statements surrounding this legal battle in March, accusing the SCSB of “playing politics with the taxpayers' money” and alleged it “manipulated the record [about why National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation’s application was rejected] to make that lawsuit easier to lose — not win.”"A state agency that deliberately hobbles its own legal position is not doing its job — it is betraying Oklahoma taxpayers,” he said. “I will not allow that.”Drummond has garnered support from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) for opposing the creation of religious charter schools.Attorneys for FFRF are representing seven Oklahomans who oppose their tax money being used to support religious charter schools.“The federal court should rule according to constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “A religious public charter school has no place in our secular public education system.”It’s unclear when the federal court will issue its ruling, but National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation has asked the judge to issue a preliminary injunction against the state so it can begin operating a school while the litigation plays out.

unitedyam

Oklahoma’s Statewide Charter School Board wants to approve religious charter schools, but a ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court and efforts by the state attorney general prevent it from doing so.

Read More