NASHVILLE (BP) — Five cases addressing religious liberty ranging from parental rights to age verification on pornographic sites will be decided when the Supreme Court announces its decisions in the coming months.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) has released explainers for all cases and their potential implications for the future. The entity also joined several amicus briefs, including one alongside both Baptist state conventions in Texas.
“The number of high-profile and important cases in this term speaks to the broad scope of the work done by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission,” said ERLC President Brent Leatherwood. “In our legal strategy, we are continually looking for opportunities to advance the cause of life, advocate for religious freedom and proclaim the goodness of God’s design for marriage and family.
“This year is no different. Whether it’s defending the ability of states to protect children from radical transgender interventions or supporting online age verification laws that put needed barriers between minors and harmful pornographic material or fighting for the ability of religious ministries to serve others consistent with their deeply held convictions, we consider it a privilege to communicate the principles of our convention of churches before the nation’s highest court.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti
A Tennessee bill approved in March 2023 and going into effect that July prohibited all medical procedures intended to “affirm” gender identity for those under 18. “Necessary protection” came from the bill, said the ERLC Explainer, from procedures like hormone therapy, puberty blockers and surgery.
The Biden Administration’s Department of Justice joined the plaintiffs — three transgender individuals, their parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — and won an injunction that continued the allowance of hormone therapy and puberty blockers. A Tennessee appeal, though, placed the law back to full effect.
There are 27 states with laws in place prohibiting doctors from performing such surgeries and procedures on minors. Many of those are undergoing litigation, with the outcome of Skrmetti helping determine if they remain in place.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
Age verification is crucial in protecting minors from sexually explicit material online, argues a Texas state law from June 2023 that requires websites capable of distributing “sexual material harmful to minors” to include such a step.
NetChoice, LLC, a lobbying organization representing more than 35 tech companies, is leading the push against the law. The group’s argument is that such steps violate the companies’ free speech and instead the courts should apply “strict scrutiny” standards typically used by the federal government.
That standard, explained the ERLC, is the same one used to enforce federal laws as they relate to religious liberty. The thread attempting to be drawn is hardly accurate, according to the ERLC and others.
“As originally understood, the First Amendment existed primarily to protect political speech and speech on matters of public concern,” stated an amicus brief presented by the ERLC, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC) and the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT). “It was not originally understood to protect obscene expression, especially when such expression might be received by minors.”
Medina v. Planned Parenthood
A 2018 executive order by South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster disqualified abortion providers from participating in the state’s Medicaid program under the position that the state should not be forced to support such organizations even if funds didn’t go directly to abortions.
In effect, it defunded Planned Parenthood in that state. Several Medicaid beneficiaries objected and filed a lawsuit saying that federal law guaranteed their right to choose any qualified provider. Lower courts agreed with them, setting up the state’s appeal that is supported in a brief by several groups, including the ERLC.
The case could have far-reaching implications, explained the ERLC, on how states administer Medicaid as well as the general discussion of taxpayer-funded abortion.
“As we saw in the aftermath of Dobbs, some states are making laudable efforts to protect preborn children, provide legitimate health care for mothers and foster a culture of life. South Carolina’s efforts to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program reflect those efforts,” said Miles Mullin, ERLC vice president in comments shortly after the case was argued before the Supreme Court.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission
In June 2023 the ERLC joined an amicus brief that included the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention in support of religious liberty at the state’s Supreme Court.
Central is the work of the Catholic Charities Bureau and terminology as to it being “charitable” or “religious.”
Wisconsin offers an unemployment insurance program to provide relief for those out of work. Religious organizations can request tax exemptions for paying into the program. The Catholic Charities Bureau did this to provide funds for an alternative program not funded by taxpayers.
The organization was denied its request. An appeal to the Circuit Court of Douglas County, Wis., ruled against the group, saying their work was not religious in nature since their ministry included non-Catholic and non-church members.
The Bureau argues that their charitable actions are an extension of their religious beliefs.
“By imposing the state’s view of what it means to be religious, based on organizational structure and the who and how of charitable service, the Commission and the appeals court are prescribing a single form of religious orthodoxy in the context of the state unemployment law,” said the brief. “That violates the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, together with the well-recognized ‘church autonomy doctrine’ that is grounded in both Clauses.”
Mahmoud v. Taylor
Over 300 parents across multiple faiths protested a decision by a Maryland school board, their case to be heard in front of the Supreme Court on April 22.
In 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education introduced a policy that required elementary schoolchildren to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality without parental notice or the ability to opt out over religious objections. After initially indicating such parental objections would be honored, the board reversed its position.
In an amicus brief filed last October, the ERLC and others highlighted the rights of parents in the upbringing and education of their children without being coerced to go against their religious beliefs. Furthermore, schools should respect diverse religious beliefs and the Free Exercise Clause in protecting parents from government-compelled ideological indoctrination.
(EDITOR’S NOTE — Scott Barkley is chief national correspondent for Baptist Press.)
