From New York Times I'm Michael borrow this is a daily today. In anew the Supreme Court has given Religious Americans latest victory against government was that the court says fringe on religious freedom, but as legal victories accumulate for their question has become whether the Supreme Court's majority is protecting the rights of the faith or giving them preference. I spoke with my colleague Supreme.

Cod rapporteur, Adam it's Wednesday April. Fourteen Adam tell me about this Supreme Court ruled that was hand, down a few days ago. So it's Friday night, it's about one thousand, one hundred and thirty at night, I'm just about to go to bed, and I got a call from the public information office at the court that the court has just handed down a ruling which is, like to save to unusual, but is happening more and more. These late night, Friday night rulings and the court says that by a five to four vote, its lifted restrictions imposed by California on religious, It is held in private homes and explain that decision in the case that led to it will California has a bunch of covered restrictions meant to thwart the spread of the band.

make one of them limits private gatherings in private homes more than three households, a couple of people who wanted to hold Bible study groups in prayer meetings in their private homes for more than three households challenge this restriction sang. It violates their constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and when they say free exercise, what they mean is the constitutional protection in the first amendment that prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion, with the ability of people to pursue their religious beliefs and practices and accord agrees,

what was the court's reasoning in letting those who want to gather for prayer and homes do so. Of course, reasoning was essentially that these folks were being treated worse than other folks. Now it's true that, on its face, this restriction applied to all kinds of private gatherings, whether its Superbowl Party or a book group or a Bible study class. It applied to all private gatherings But the court says that's not the right way to ask the question: is religion? Being treated worse than anything in any way comparable and the courts as we have to cast and more broadly and other things are comparable, you know the supermarket is comparable. Detaining salon is comparable with the manicurist shop is complex the bowling alleys comparable and because there are no similar limits in those settings, the cord says to the free exercise, rights of the folks who want to do you really

is gatherings in their homes had been violated, got it so, in this ruling, a majority of the justices find that when it comes to a rule, restricting everyone's only together, at whom the gathering of religious people who want to get together and pray in their homes should be treated differently based on protection of religion. In U S constitution. So that's exactly right. That captures with the majority said the descent takes a different view of dissent listen. This law applies equally to religion and none religion. The right way to think about it is: does it restrict religious people who want to gather in their homes more than nonreligious people who want together in their homes the answer that is no and the majority is hunting around and stretching matters to try to find things to compare these home gatherings do and

doesn't make sense. So in descend. Justice, Elena Kagan says it's not the job of the court to compare apples to watermelons. Got it by which she man, you can compare people gathering at home to pray with supermarkets and why does this ruling, which, on its surface, seems kind of small. Home gatherings in a single one of our fifty states? Why does it matter? What matters for least two reasons, Michael One, is it's an instance of incredible winning streak for claims of religious liberty before the Supreme Court so it's one of many, but it's one of many that has been undermining principle. The court announced in ninety ninety that neutral laws of general applicability applied to religion and everybody else, and I know that

a bit of jargon, but what it means is if, if there's a law that, since everyone has to pay taxes, if he ever really just objection paying taxes, tough luck, it's a neutral, love, general applicability. If there's a lot of targets are singles out religion, sure that deserves constitutional protection, but a law that applies to everybody. Equally, Is constitutional got it? So? Where does that nineteen? Ninety principle, that laws should apply neutrally to all, including religious people, where's actors that come from will you argument next number? Eighty, eight. Twelve. Thirteen employment division, or it comes from a case- called employment division versus Smith. Does the free exercise clause require every step to exempt the religious pay or to use by the native american Church or perhaps even beyond that, and the question

case was whether native Americans, who had taken peyote is part of a religious ceremony were exempt from a law that barred illegal drug use, they contend that a religious motivation for engaging in legally prohibited action laces? It is beyond the reach of a law that is not specifically directed at his religious practice and that its Conceitedly Constitution was applied to others and the Supreme Court in a decision by justice engines. Clear, conservative justice, articulate the principle that we have been living with for many decades Visual, religious beliefs do not exclude him from compliance with an otherwise valid law. Prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate, say, don't get an exception. Just because you religious objection to make an individual's obligation to obey such a law. Intent. Upon the laws coincidence with his religious beliefs, contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense,

now a law that actually targets religion, the disadvantages religion by design completely different question, but lost that apply to everybody, our constitutional, even if they interfere with some aspect of religious practice. Right, for example, along like a cobra deficient California, seeing no one can gather in their homes if there are more than three households that would under this and simple, be considered neutrally applicable to everyone. It would look like a classic example of it and threw it in its guided the cord until quite recently, when there seems to be now quite successful, moved to undermine it, and when did that successful, move to undermine it start to experience this success that you mention

so it's been accelerating, and particularly since chief justice, John Roberts joined the court in two thousand and five, but I'd seen in the past couple years. The court has found a way to chip away at undermine hollow out the principle so that religious groups get special favouritism, for example, in the last her. The term than ended. In July there were three major religions cases. The religious group wins every time, one she was, if face, give tax benefits to private schools. Do they have to give them also to really just was I mean this is a case about money and the question whether or not it must go to religious schools answer yes,

the question was due religious schools. Do catholic schools have an exemption from employment discrimination laws to your asking for an exemption to the anti american visa to all sorts laws and the answer is yes. The religious group gets to set its own internal rules and finally, came religious employers opt out of the Obama, your contraception mandate, requiring them to provide free contraception coverage, the female workers party about exacting a factor of a church. In respect of the answer to that more or less was yes. So at the end of the last term, religious liberty is doing great. It's out of winning streak with one exception.

cases involving state restrictions on religious gatherings to combat the pandemic. The court has been sustaining those restrictions saying that the government even at the expense of impinging. On www liberty has the right to protect public health, but that changes after justice, Ruth Better Ginsburg dies in September, is replaced by just to see me Coney Barry and what he'd been five for decisions in one direction. Sustaining these restrictions, all of a sudden become five for decisions in the opposite direction, where the religious groups start to win where the court says they have a cost. To right, to gather in houses of worship and now in private homes, notwithstanding the public health interests on the other side,

So I don't weird: does that winning streak end up leaving the Supreme Court on this question of religious liberty and his print all that laws should be neutrally applied, the Supreme Court. figured out a way to undermine but not overthrow that principle and the way it does it is to say if any secular activity is treated better then religion, then religion must also be treated the same, and so very rare regulation that doesn't have an exception for something

and so long as you have an exception for something. The court is now saying. Religion also has to get that same exception got it. So if something is granted to anyone, it must also be granted to people of religion right and the practical impact of that is to give claims of religious liberty special force and to give religious people in groups a kind of privileged status right, which is by Devon. Not neutrality, its preference right, and maybe that's right. I mean you know, there's ninety nine hundred and ninety may not be correct, but what we know for sure is that the new rule is different, All the way back

just club and Emily few polices, an incredible broadcaster border and journalists and Josh a hacker turned technologists turn I guess those built for change and new pod gas from Accenture. We cover disruption and innovation to share with business leaders. Would they need to know now in order to shape their futures? If this dear, has taught us anything, it's the change waits for no one. Do you start the conversation subscribe to build for change, so you don't miss an episode. This is Carolyn Ryan Deputy Managing editor at the New York Times, something the truth is hard to come by or it's hard to believe some truth, You, like the cities, like the status of the back, seen rollout or the human impact on climate change. The truth can be essential in holding power to account, especially as a new administration starts governing and Washington,

it can be surprising. Enchanting even reassuring were learning that trees talk to each other through fungal networks. exercise can be snack sized and that people who find themselves working from their beds these days have something in common is Frida Kahlo. In Winston Churchill, when you subscribe to the New York Times, you give us the support. We need to report the truth as faithfully and doggedly as possible, if you're already a time subscriber. Thank you. If you'd like to join us and become a subscriber you can go to my time start com. Slash subscribe, I don't! Why are these religious liberty cases so important to religious groups? What is wrong with a world in which the law

as Justice Anthony's Scalia articulated it, the law apply as neutrally to their religious as it does to the non religious and therefore, what's the legal and religious logic of bringing these cases to the Supreme Court, this is part of societal, split Americans have become less religious overtime. Religious Americans have dug in and feel aggrieved that mainstream culture and developments in legislatures and at the Supreme Court, notably in the twenty fifteen decision establishing or constitutional right to say, Six marriage has left them out and not only that but kind of marginalized them and caricature them as bigots

when they're not on board for advances as progressive. see in gay rights, transgender rights, access to contraception and so So this is a legal fight, but also a culture wars, fight the member, the court. I associate most with the position that religion needs special protection, these days is a justice Samuel Alito. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to all of you who are attending the federalist societies. Annual lawyers convention via the internet, George W Bush appointed, joins the court in two thousand six. Both his writings and his public comments, and notably in his speech he gave back in November to the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters religious liberty is fast becoming a display

right. He really sketches out how the Courtney to be doing more in this area because he says religious liberty is under assault. Take the protracted campaign against the little sisters of the poor. He lists a bunch of cases in which he says, religious people had been powerfully mistreated. Notably the little sisters of the poor, an order of catholic nuns, in one provide contraception coverage to its workers, but also Jack Philips, the owner of the now notorious masterpiece cake. but take Baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for same sex couples. Pharmacy called rafts was owned by a christian faith, and was a pharmacist. You didn't want to fulfil some contraceptive prescriptions

a great many Americans disagree, sometimes quite strongly with the religious beliefs of the little sisters, the owners of roofs and Jack Philips, and, of course, they have a perfect right to do some. That is not. The question. Question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs, so all of these people he says have been marginalized. They will risk being labelled as bigots and tree. As such by governments, employers and schools cast out of light society merely for trying to follow their faith. Consider where things. But in the 1990s, when the Supreme Court decision Called- and he suggests this is a consequence of this one thousand nine hundred and ninety decision, which requires people to knuckle under, he would say

two neutral laws of general applicability for all Americans standing up for our constitution and our freedom is work that law as a and he goes on to say that the law should carve out space for religious people not to have to support and participate in things they violate their conscience. but when we may next year, I hope we will be able to say that progress was made until then. I wish you all the best thank him, but, of course that raises a fundamental question about religion in a democracy which is who should have to make accommodations in a society, their religious person or the secular society, and if Emma gave up all that walks into that bakery, not accommodating me not making a cake

From my wedding, that sure looks like bias and bigotry and it looks like illegal discrimination. But if I'm the religious owner of that bakery forcing me to bake that cake may feel anti religious, it may feel like a legal impingement on my government telling me to violate my deeply held beliefs, so this becomes a very complicated question of who is supposed to make a sacrifice: riding These two sets of values may not be able to be accommodated. It may be that one has to win one has to lose and at the risk of repeating myself, the constitution does protect the free exercise of religion, and it means something whether it means quite as much as what the majority on the Supreme Court now says. That's the battleground we're no fighting And if you said almost all these religious liberty cases

Stemmed from this sense that religious people are being trampled by secular law and that the majority of Americans are essentially imposing a will on a minority of Americans, that seems to be the dynamic, but given the vault I of victories at the Supreme Court that you have just described it no longer perhaps feels like this is about a small group of people under attack, seeking mere carve out and exemptions. Is this now potentially a moment in America, legal history, where religious people, in the eyes of the law are actually starting to be truly preferred by the law and Does that then undermine the argument that religion

and religious people are under attack. He a curious part of the Alito speech where he says in some quarters. I really miss. Liberty is no longer a favored right and I'm not sure what quarter is he's talking about, but I know what quarter is he's not talking about, which is the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court. As you say, Michael religious groups, and, let's face it, particularly christian religious groups- have achieved really a special status. So the notion religious people are under attack is in real tension, at least at the court, maybe, and other aspects of society. Justice leader is right, but at the court the story is the opposite of the one he tells at the court. The story is of triumphant series of huge victories for really So I'm given that what is the next chapter in this legal debate at the Supreme Court over Willie

this liberty, or we have one big religion case this term. The case involves Philadelphia, foster care system, the city runs it. It contracts with private groups to screen potential foster parents. Catholic charities have long participated in programme, but the contract they have to sign. With the city says, you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. You have to allow same sex couples to participate and the catholic charities say no. Thank you. We want to participate but we'd like to rewrite the contract, because we have a religious objection to same sex couples serving as fostered since and at the argument the cord went down the same road we ve been talking about. Are there are exceptions that apply in other settings? Does this city sometimes take account of say, race,

in whom it's going to place. Children with in the best interests of the child and the suggestion from some of the conservative justices was once you have some exception. You have to give an exception to the Catholic, charity also, so you have this same dynamic we ve been talking about and if they rule as I expect they will for the catholic charities, the court to do one of two things: it could overrule the nineteen ninety case entirely. It's been asked to do that. That's part of the case that could happen or say as soon as anybody gets an exception. The catholic charities have to get inception exception and Because of the way, the Foster CARE programme is set up somewhere. Play somewhere is gonna, get an exception to something and then for the nineteen. Ninety, this Jane remains in place in name, but it's been re characterized recast and hollowed out to such an extent that it almost doesn't

matter, and either way under either rationale. What we end up with is that leginn and religious groups under this Supreme Court will achieved a very special status in american society along, Thank you Adam repression. Thank you, Michael. we'll be right back.

Given its leaders are currently standing on the precipice of the biggest fundamental shift that we have seen in decades, the status close out the window. Things are not going back to the whether they were. I really feel an orange climb, where the hosts of bill for change a new podcast from censure on built for change. We hear from business leaders about the urgent challenges companies are facing as they step into the future, we're talking about the changing workforce, sustainability, new technologies and so much more subscribe to bill for change now. So you don't miss an absurd here's. What else you need tenor day this morning, the FDA and DDT, and know that urban abundance of caution were recommending of ports and the use of the Johnson is Johnston cope with nineteen fasting on Tuesday to key. U S. Health agencies called for a temporary suspension of coolly nineteen vaccinations using Johnson and Johnson's single shot dose

after receiving reports of six cases in which recipients of the vaccine developed severe blood cause right now I'd like to stress this event appeared to me. extremely rare, however, curbing nineteen back in safety is a top priority for the federal government and we take all report too bad birth events following vaccination very seriously, The six cases out of newly seven million doses administered all occurred in women within about two Weeks of vaccination. After the announcement, many states immediately followed the federal guides and said they would pause injection of Johnson and Johnson's vaccine. One of three covered vaccines authorized for emergency use. In the. U S,

President Biden has decided to withdraw all american troops from Afghanistan by September eleven twenty years after terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Prompted the? U S to declare war on the Taliban. That timetable extends the deadline proposed by President Tromp, who had sought to withdraw the troops by May first. Finally, the White police officer in Brooklyn Centre? Minnesota fatally shot Dante Write, an unarmed, twenty or blackmail has resigned, as has the city's police chief, the officer Kim Potter, said she was leaving the force after twenty six years quote in the best interest of the community. Titties episode

produced by Austin Mitchell, Robert Jemison Andean Yogi, met it was edited by these Shaw, an engineered by Chris would that's it for the death of Michael by tomorrow. I believe you and I'm Josh Climb, where the health of guilt change a new pod gas from Accenture. The pandemic has radically transformed the way we do business and now is the time to forge a new path ahead. So what did the world's most innovative leaders, think about navigating change? What strategies are working for them on built for change? learn. What Accenture is discovered about? How businesses can rise to these challenges and fine success subscribed to build for change now? So you don't miss an episode