​The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the Western Apache’s last appeal to protect their sacred lands from being transformed into a copper mine. The way is now clear to transfer this parcel of the Tonto National Forest, Oak Flat, from the federal government to a multinational mining company, Resolution Copper.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was joined in an impassioned dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas. It is masterfully reasoned, leaving one to wonder not just about the blatant injustice of this land deal for the Apache, but the implications for the religious freedom of other Americans in the future.

The Background

Gorsuch goes into great detail explaining the history of the Apaches’ connection to Oak Flat and its central place in their religion. He quotes the cert petition explaining the importance of Oak Flat:

“Western Apaches believe that the site is the dwelling place of the Ga’an – ‘saints’ or ‘holy spirits’ that lie at ‘the very foundation of [their] religion … ‘They come from the ground,’ and they serve as ‘messengers between Usen, the Creator, and [Apaches] in the physical world.’

“Faithful to these beliefs, tribal members have worshipped at Oak Flat for centuries, conducting there a number of religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else.”

Justice Gorsuch goes into detail about Apache ceremonies, including three-day coming-of-age-rituals for Apache girls, in which they gather plants while covered in white clay. This mirrors the Apache creation story in which a white-painted woman came out of the earth. Gorsuch quotes the plaintiff, the Apache Stronghold, which wrote that the white clay is meant to “imprint” the spirit of Oak Flat in the young women.

Now, Justice Gorsuch writes, tribal members believe the destruction of Oak Flat “will close off the portal to the Creator forever and will completely devastate the Western Apaches’ spiritual lifeblood.”

The Law

Gorsuch details obligations in an 1852 treaty between the Apaches and the government to recognize the sacred status of Oak Flat. Those obligations were overturned when legislators attached an 11th hour rider to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, hiding it in a bill that was 698 pages long.

Justice Gorsuch proceeds to dissect and expose the illogical Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that will now allow the multinational mining company to destroy Oak Flat. Today’s motion puts at risk the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was passed by Congress in 1993 to protect the free exercise of religion from “substantial burdens” by the federal government.

The Ninth Circuit got around RFRA by turning to a precedent, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. (1988) that involved a First Amendment challenge to a plan to construct a road on federal land near sacred tribal sites. Gorsuch writes:

“On the Ninth Circuit’s telling, Lyng set forth a special test for analyzing whether the government’s ‘disposition’ of its real property runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause … That test, the Ninth Circuit said, permits the government to do as it pleases with its property as long as it has no ‘tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs’ and does not ‘discriminate against or among religious adherents.’”

The Result

Justice Gorsuch notes that courts have had no qualms upholding other laws restricting the government’s power to dispose of its real property. The Endangered Species Act, for example, required the halting of a federal dam to protect the “snail darter.” But no such protections can be afforded to the religion of the Apaches.

The way is now clear for Resolution Copper to blast tunnels that will result in a crater 1,000 feet deep and nearly two miles wide. While courts have acknowledged that this will permanently destroy the Apaches’ historical place of worship, preventing them from ever worshipping there, it does not – according the Ninth Circuit opinion now upheld –amount to a “substantial burden” of the First Amendment religious freedom rights of the Apache. Justice Gorsuch writes:

“Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a claim of legal reasoning. I have no doubt we would find the case worth our time. Faced with the government’s plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.”

He ended his dissent with a quote from the Court’s 2018 opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop:

“Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to … religious freedom.”

In his conclusion, Justice Gorsuch writes:
​
“While this Court enjoys the power to choose which cases it will hear, its decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake – one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations."

​Zooey Zephyr and Laurel Libby could not be more different. Zephyr is a transwoman and activist for trans rights. Libby is an acerbic critic of allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports.
 
Zephyr is a Democratic state representative in bright-red Montana. Libby is a Republican state representative in bright-blue Maine. But they do have one significant thing in common: both were forcibly silenced by their respective legislatures.
 
In 2023, during a debate on restricting gender-affirming care for minors, Zephyr claimed that such a move would exacerbate the high rate of suicide among transgender teens. When she claimed that those who voted for the bill would have “blood on your hands,” Zephyr was expelled, banned from the House chamber for the remainder of the legislative year. This made her absent from the discussions, deliberations, and horse-trading that occurs as Montana passed a housing bill and the state budget.
 
“There will be 11,000 Montanans whose representative is missing,” Zephyr said. She took legal action to restore her right to appear in the chamber, but her legal move became moot when the legislative year ended.
 
Why was Laurel Libby silenced? She put up a social media post showing a transgender high school athlete who had come in fifth place in pole vaulting last year in a boys’ event, only to win first place a year later in the girls’ state championship. When she refused a demand by her Democratic colleagues to remove the post, Libby was censured and denied the right to vote.
 
You might love, loathe, or be indifferent to either legislator and her cause. But both were commenting on an issue that is inherently political and can only be settled in our society by political means. With such an emotional issue, this is sure to entail some hot words. That’s democracy.
 
What’s not democracy is that in both Montana and Maine – where one party controls the governorship, the state House, and Senate – a member of the opposing party, and therefore her constituents, were silenced.
 
This was so egregious that last week, the U.S. Supreme Court used its emergency docket to issue a stay in the expulsion of Rep. Libby from the Maine chamber. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson protested in a dissent that the Court had come to rely too much on the “short fuse” of the emergency docket. When dealing with the rights of legislatures, the Court has reason to move carefully. But if the Court had not acted, how many more months or years would Libby be forbidden from representing her constituents?
 
And without a temporary restoration from the Court, if Libby were to ultimately win her lawsuit, how would she then be compensated for lost votes and a ruined term in office?
 
Legislatures do have a right – and sometimes good reason – to punish and even expel members for extreme behavior. But the same government that cannot silence one individual should not be allowed to silence a legislator and the thousands she represents.
 
The Court made the right call in favor of the First Amendment.

​Sen. Tim Scott’s latest legislative effort – the High-Quality Charter Schools Act – should be welcomed by anyone who values liberty, educational opportunity, and the full expression of our First Amendment rights. The South Carolina Republican is introducing a 75 percent federal tax credit for charitable donations to nonprofit charter school organizations with proven excellence. The aim is clear – to break down the financial barriers that prevent communities from opening the schools their children need.
 
“No matter their background, race or zip-code, every child deserves access to a good school,” Sen. Scott said in his introduction of this bill. “Millions of families – including thousands across South Carolina – choose charter schools for the high-quality education they provide.” He said that this bill will strengthen the best educational opportunities for families that need it the most.
 
For Protect The 1st, this bill isn’t just sound policy. It is a way to fulfill the promise of the First Amendment. Parents have a right, grounded in part in that Amendment, to guide their children’s education in ways that reflect their values and beliefs across generations. School choice empowers families to act on that right, whether through religious schools, charter schools, or other educational models.
 
The First Amendment protects both free speech and religious liberty. School choice legislation like this honors both. It enables families to seek out educational environments – secular or religious – that align with their convictions, without government interference.
 
We’ve seen this principle in action with the Educational Choice for Children Act. That measure, now part of the reconciliation package before the Senate, would offer similar tax credits for donations to organizations that fund scholarships for private and religious schools. It’s about using private donations to give families more options and students better chances. In Sen. Scott’s bill and the ECCA, money comes from voluntary donations, not state tax dollars.
 
Moreover, contrary to arguments by critics, there is abundant evidence showing that competition from school choice actually improves public schools. Out of 28 studies that explored the causal relationship between school choice and the performance of public schools, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. “In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam dunk,” writes Alexander William Salter, economist at Texas Tech University. When families have options, everyone wins.
 
Sen. Scott’s focus on charter schools adds another dimension, supporting schools that often serve low-income and minority students. It offers alternatives where the public system has failed. Sen. Scott’s bill respects American pluralism and helps close the gap between educational ideals and the lived reality of American families. Perhaps most important, it gives parents greater control over the destiny of their children. It does this by supporting institutions – charter, religious, and independent – that reflect America’s diversity while enabling the fullest exercise of the First Amendment.

​Protect The 1st is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock that blocks public funding of a religious charter school in Oklahoma.
 
The ruling, composed of only two sentences, leaves in place an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision to deny St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School its prospective status as the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school.
 
This dispute started in 2023, when Oklahoma’s charter school board okayed an application by the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa to create St. Isidore. The school’s plan centered around online learning to address the demand for quality instruction across the Sooner State’s charter school network.
 
Soon after, Oklahoma attorney general Gentner Drummond went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, asking it to invalidate the charter board’s contract with the school. In a 7-1 opinion, the court ruled against allowing public charter funds to support St. Isidore, holding the funding of online religious schools by the state to be unconstitutional.

In her lone dissent, Justice Dana Kuehn made the compelling point that taking the state’s money would make St. Isidore a publicly funded school, but not a “public school.” Judge Kuehn wrote:
 
“St. Isidore would not become a ‘state actor’ merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 
Indeed, as long as a religious school meets the state’s teaching requirements for math, science, English and other core subjects, it should be eligible for any public benefits made available to any other private school. Oklahoma’s rejection of this common sense, guiding principle is based on the antiquated Blaine Amendments – anti-Catholic laws passed largely in the 19th century to prevent Catholic schools from receiving public funding. These laws, which exist in 37 states, remain in force as living relics of anti-Catholic bigotry from a bygone era.
 
Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has effectively ruled in three recent cases that “a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”
 
In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Court ruled that a Missouri policy denying religious organizations access to playground resurfacing grants violated the Free Exercise Clause. In Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, the Court held that a Montana state constitutional provision barring aid to any school “controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination” was similarly unconstitutional. And in Carson v. Makin, the Court found that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments also failed to pass constitutional muster.
 
Attorney General Drummond, the de facto victor in this case, seems to believe that contracting with the state makes a charter school a public school, a position with far-reaching implications for future state contractors of any religious affiliation. We heartily agree with Justice Kuehn – and so apparently does at least half of the Supreme Court (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself due to a likely conflict emanating from her former position at Notre Dame).
 
As the Alliance Defending Freedom – representing the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board – said in its certiorari petition:
 
“The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s conclusion that Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson ‘do not apply to the governmental action in this case’ fails along with the state-action premise on which it rests … St. Isidore is not a state actor, so the lower court’s talismanic invocation of the phrase ‘governmental action’ does not distinguish this Court’s cases.”
 
But there is good news amid the bad news – the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett almost certainly tilted the balance against St. Isidore. This augurs well for future cases on the equal treatment of religious based schools, as the Court has already done in Carson v. Makin.
 
States should take this opportunity to repeal prejudiced Blaine Amendments, and maybe find another, future opportunity for action that doesn’t trigger a recusal. 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support, was crafted to provide a strong shield for religious liberty. It requires that any government action that substantially burdens religious exercise must be the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. This principle was not meant to expire or be casually overridden.
 
In a recent Supreme Court filing, the Biden Administration asserted that RFRA can be silently displaced by later statutes, even if Congress says nothing about overriding religious liberty. In a brief footnote, the government argued that if a later statute mandates action – even if it burdens religious exercise – it must override RFRA by default.
 
Perhaps that was to be expected from the Biden Administration, which did not make the freedom of religious exercise a priority. More troubling is that the current administration’s Solicitor General, Dean John Sauer, echoed this view in a letter to the Supreme Court in Apache Stronghold v. United States. Sauer reaffirmed the notion that the land-exchange statute at the heart of the case supersedes RFRA, simply because it came later and is “more specific.”
 
This theory invites the piecemeal erosion of civil liberties. If accepted, it would allow Congress – or perhaps even regulatory agencies – to nullify fundamental rights like religious freedom without ever saying so explicitly. All it takes is a newer law or rule that conflicts with RFRA, and the protections vanish.
 
That logic assumes Congress fully weighs the consequences for religious liberty every time it enacts a new law. It presumes that federal agencies act with constitutional clarity. In truth, lawmakers are not always so meticulous, and regulators have been known to ride roughshod over constitutional protections.
 
This framework has already emboldened efforts to undercut conscience protections in healthcare. Under this view, statutes that promote access to abortion or gender-transition procedures can override RFRA by mere implication – forcing doctors and hospitals to act against their beliefs, without any serious effort to reconcile those conflicts.
 
It is disappointing, to say the least, that a Trump Administration lawyer would continue this Biden-era legacy. Conservatives, especially those with commitments to religious liberty, should reject any legal doctrine that grants Congress or regulators an easy path to nullify core civil rights.
 
RFRA was designed to stand as a bulwark, not a speed bump. Allowing it to be bypassed by silence or implication is not just bad legal reasoning – it undermines a law that reinforces the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court declared in 2020 that “RFRA operates as a kind of super-statute, displacing the normal operations of other federal laws.”
 
The Supreme Court should now again affirm that RFRA remains fully in force.

​Under the leadership of Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the House Ways and Means Committee approved the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) on Wednesday as part of the tax package in President Trump’s “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill. This measure provides $20 billion in tax credits over the next four years to non-profit Scholarship Granting Organizations to pay private school tuition and educational materials for children throughout the United States.
 
“This is hopeful news for millions of American students and their parents,” said Bob Goodlatte, former Congressman and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senior Policy Advisor to Protect The 1st. “Giving parents the ability to choose the best school for their children is a powerful expression of the First Amendment across the generations. Whether parents choose a private school that specializes in the sciences and technology, or the arts, or a religious school, they are free to make the best choice for their children.
 
“Our gratitude goes to Chairman Smith and all of his colleagues who stood behind the ECCA,” Goodlatte said. “We are also grateful to the followers of Protect The 1st who answered our call to let House Members know how important this legislation is to the families and children of America.
 
“We urge more Members to get behind the passage of this bill by the full House and the Senate, and its delivery to the president’s desk.”

​A federal court has blocked the government from transferring Oak Flat to a foreign-owned mining company, preserving the sacred Apache site while the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case. The ruling is a powerful rebuke of the federal rush to transfer the land, which Western Apaches consider a portal to the Creator and the center of their religious life.
 
Judge Steven P. Logan concluded that “there is no close question in this matter,” finding it “abundantly clear that the balance of equities ‘tips sharply’ in Plaintiff’s favor.” He emphasized that the Apaches face “a likelihood of irreparable harm should the transfer proceed” and that the case presents “serious questions on the merits that warrant the Supreme Court’s careful scrutiny.”
 
Oak Flat, which sits within Arizona’s Tonto National Forest, has been central to Apache religion for centuries. For 70 years, it has been protected from mining, until a 2014 defense bill provision set the stage for its transfer to Resolution Copper, a subsidiary of a multinational firm partially owned by a Chinese corporation.
 
If the mine goes forward, the Apache will forever lose their ability to perform ceremonies tied to the land. Resolution Copper plans to turn Oak Flat into a two-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater. That devastation would be irreversible, a loss equal in scale to dynamiting the Vatican or using the stones of the Wailing Wall as a quarry.
 
Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold responded bluntly: “The federal government and Resolution Copper have put Oak Flat on death row – they are racing to destroy our spiritual lifeblood and erase our religious traditions forever.”
 
The injunction prohibits the federal government from publishing its environmental report or finalizing the land transfer until the Supreme Court either denies review or issues a final ruling. That decision halts Resolution Copper’s plans to turn Oak Flat into a massive copper mine.
 
The court rejected the argument that Apache rituals could simply be relocated, stating it was “disinclined to minimize the importance of Oak Flat to the Apache’s belief system.” As previously noted by the court in 2021, the mine would “close off a portal to the Creator forever and will completely devastate the Western Apaches’ spiritual lifeblood.”
 
Judge Logan also dismissed the mining company’s claims about financial harm, noting they had invested in the land years before Congress authorized the transfer and did so “voluntarily.” In contrast, the Apaches risk losing access not just to land, but to their religious future: “They cannot choose to practice their religion at all once their sacred religious site is completely ‘obliterated,’” as one dissenting judge previously wrote.
 
Oak Flat is more than a legal fight. It’s a test of whether the U.S. government will honor its promise of religious liberty when it matters most – not just in speech, but in action. The Apache’s sacred ground deserves the same protection any church, synagogue, or mosque would be afforded. If the Apache lose, Americans of all faiths will lose as well.

​The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into Washington State Senate Bill 5375, a new law that forces Catholic priests to break the seal of confession or face criminal consequences. Signed into law on May 2 by Gov. Bob Ferguson (D-WA), the bill mandates that clergy report suspected child abuse, even if the information is obtained during a sacramental confession. The investigation focuses on whether the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom by criminalizing a practice that has been protected under both religious doctrine and U.S. legal tradition for more than two centuries.
 
SB 5375 adds clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse but does so with one key difference: it refuses to honor the long-standing legal and religious protection for confessional secrecy. Unlike doctors or lawyers, clergy are denied any exemption.
 
“This law demands that Catholic priests violate their deeply held faith in order to obey the law,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, calling the law a violation of the First Amendment. The Catholic Church, for its part, has warned that any priest who complies will be automatically excommunicated, reinforcing the absolute nature of the confessional seal in Catholic doctrine.
 
While the law is presented as a measure to protect children, its specific targeting of clergy reveals a more troubling agenda. Other professions maintain their confidentiality rights. Only clergy are denied theirs. That double standard invites constitutional scrutiny and raises the question of whether the law was crafted not just for protection, but for punishment. And it destroys any semblance of either religious neutrality or general applicability in the process.
 
Proponents argue that the law is necessary. But even if the goal is admirable, the means are unlawful. No predator will confess if he knows it will lead to arrest. The practical result is a law that does nothing to prevent abuse and everything to trample religious rights.
 
Gov. Ferguson dismissed the federal investigation as political. Yet it is the state’s law that politicizes religion, forcing clergy to choose between faith and compliance. That’s not accountability – it’s coercion.
 
The law is set to take effect on July 27. Unless blocked in court, priests in Washington State will soon face an impossible choice: obey the law and betray their faith, or uphold their faith and face legal punishment. That’s a choice no free society should ever demand of its citizens.

​Georgia Dillane did not attend the pro-Palestinian sit-in at Barnard College in March. She wasn’t out in the crowd; she was in the school’s WKCR radio studio anchoring a broadcast. Yet weeks later, she found herself accused by Barnard of “disorderly conduct, disruptive behavior, failure to comply, unauthorized entry, threatening behavior, and theft, vandalism or damage to property.” All for doing her job as a journalist.
 
Her colleague, Celeste Gamble, was at the scene, but only as a credentialed student reporter. She left when told by police to evacuate. There is no reason to believe she was anything but professional in her role as an objective observer. Yet, like Dillane, Gamble received emails from Barnard’s CARES (Community Accountability, Response, and Emergency Services) office demanding she meet without legal counsel to “refute any suggestion” of wrongdoing. Neither student had been disruptive. Neither had committed any known infraction. Yet they were treated as suspects.
 
Dillane’s offense appears to be little more than journalism. Her real “crime” was that a man later arrested by immigration authorities could be heard in her audio report. That connection, however tenuous, was enough to get her flagged as a potential wrongdoer just weeks before graduation, which had temporarily been put in jeopardy.
 
This is not an isolated incident. As we’ve noted in our coverage of Tufts Ph.D. student Rumeysa Orturk, moral panic over campus protests is now being weaponized against students with the flimsiest of links to the turmoil. Orturk, too, was no ringleader – just a signatory to a student op-ed, sober and serious, that was critical of Israel. Orturk was arrested and nearly deported before a judge intervened.
 
The recent spike in antisemitism on college campuses is real, troubling, and must be countered and kept from happening again. Hate speech and threats of violence must always be taken seriously by college administrations. But the solution cannot be to launch witch hunts against students who write, report, or question. Colleges and universities are where the principle of free inquiry – so foundational to our democracy – is meant to be practiced.
 
If journalism is rebranded as “disruption,” and if signing an op-ed becomes a pretext for arrest, we risk sliding from law enforcement into the realm of viewpoint persecution. Institutions like Barnard should be defending their students’ right to report and speak freely, not joining in the chorus of overreaction.
 
Even though New York’s shield law provides strong protections for journalists, including an absolute privilege for confidential sources, it doesn’t cover unpaid student reporters. Still, courts in the Second Circuit have found that student journalists can claim a qualified First Amendment privilege if they gather news for public distribution. Undermining their independence betrays both press freedom and the core mission of higher education.
 
In this age of guilt by association, the pursuit of actual wrongdoers can give way to the harassment of innocent people, even those who (unlike the two student journalists) have opinions we detest. We should remember freedom means protecting dissenters we disagree with, and standing up for process even when we’re angry. Otherwise, we lose not only our cool, but our constitutional compass.

​Quick, fill in the blanks below.
 
There is no God but _______ and _________ is his messenger.
 
At a loss? Here is some Q&A guidance:
 
“Who Is Allah?” Answer: “Allah is the one God who created the heavens and the earth, who has no equal and is all powerful.”
 
And this:
 
“Who is Muhammad?” Answer: “Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is the last & final Messenger of God. God gave him the Noble Quran.”
 
The above comes from a lesson plan from a class in Chatham Middle School in New Jersey. This and other material prompted a lawsuit by Libby Hilsenrath on behalf of her minor son when he was exposed to these questions and prompts in a seventh-grade World Cultures and Geography class.
 
In addition, Hilsenrath’s son was exposed to videos alternating between quotations from the Quran and a series of questions and answers about Islam. The course included an animated cartoon explaining the “Five Pillars of Islam.”
 
Hilsenrath sued, claiming that her son’s right to free expression of religion under the First Amendment were violated by this outright proselytizing of Islam. The teachings amounted to a government establishment of religion. A federal district court disagreed. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has just upheld the ruling of the lower court.
 
Protect The 1st agrees with the Third Circuit’s opinion. The reasons why are critical to making the distinction between government establishment of a religion and teaching about a religion.
 
The Chatham Middle School’s World Cultures and Geography class included units focused on six different regions of the world. Students not only studied the history of these regions, but also their religion(s).
 
As we’ve long noted, schools cannot properly teach American history without examining the motivations and beliefs of Christians, from the Puritans to the Great Awakening, the abolitionists and the civil rights movement. Similarly, in class Chatham students were taught about the basic tenets of Christianity and its missionary impulse when studying Latin America, about Hinduism and Buddhism in Asia, and about Islam when studying the Middle East.
 
The curriculum referred to “what Muslims believe” instead of what students should believe. It was a respectful deep dive into Islam that will help any of the non-Muslim students in the class who might later travel to a Muslim country to understand the beliefs and sensibilities of their hosts.
 
In recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has looked back to history as a guide to what an actual establishment of religion – forbidden by the First Amendment – would look like. It would include government control over the doctrine and personnel of a religion. It might mandate attendance at worship and sanction those who did not. It might punish dissenters and restrict their political participation. It might provide support for the favored religion and give it a monopoly over certain civic functions.
 
The lesson plan of Chatham Middle School did not include any of these hallmarks of a religious establishment.
 
Just as it is wrong to use the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to shut down the teaching of the role of churches in American history, it also should not be used to keep children ignorant about the role of world religions. There is literally no way to understand modern Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, or Indonesia without reference to their Islamic heritage. 
 
In many secular contexts, there is a growing impulse – one could call it theophobia – regarding any reference to religion, or inclusion of religious schools or organizations in public programs or venues, as an automatic constitutional violation. But this is not the law.
 
The Establishment Clause means what it says, but it does not require religion to be handled as if it were radioactive.
 
Parents do have a role in imparting religious beliefs. “The United States of America is not Sparta,” the Third Circuit declared, “where children were considered wards of the state. Parents are the first and foremost teachers of their children.” When a school board elected by parents decides to teach children about the world and its many beliefs, however, that is also the First Amendment in action.

​Elite universities have undeniably become academies of progressive ideology, in dire need of diversity of thought and opinion. They have also become bastions of racial discrimination, as the Supreme Court found in its 2023 opinion, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, ruling that Harvard’s admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With President Trump announcing on Friday that he will revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a court might well decide that Harvard’s admissions and hiring policies, and its tolerance of antisemitism on campus, make it a legitimate target for tough action.
 
But the order to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and the administration’s April 11th letter to Harvard setting conditions for continued federal funding raise other concerns that should trouble defenders of academic freedom, especially those who are conservatives.
 
The administration tied further federal funding to reforms to the school’s curriculum and culture. Whether or not Harvard needs reform, this plainly infringes on Harvard’s First Amendment rights, endeavoring to trade Harvard’s progressive “ideological capture” for a different kind of capture – outright government control. And if successful, subsequent efforts to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status will open the floodgates to future abuses of power that conservatives will live to regret.
 
This is the inherent danger of the administration’s desire to create a superhighway for federal control of academic freedom. In Harvard’s complaint filed in federal court in Massachusetts, the university quoted the Supreme Court’s Moody v. Netchoice (2024) decision that “The First Amendment does not permit the government to ‘interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.’”
 
Harvard didn’t have to look far for that precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed it in 2024, when it found that government cannot suppress disfavored speech by threat of sanctions. Based on the plain text of the government’s letter, that seems exactly the administration’s aim here. 
 
New questions will arise now that President Trump is ordering the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent editorial, some precedent exists that could support such an action. It is true that in 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the IRS’ revocation of Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status based on its overtly racially discriminatory practices. The Court at that time reasoned that “an institution seeking tax-exempt status must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.” But many critics of Bob Jones were still concerned about such policies being made by the IRS on the basis of no law.
 
Beyond the legal and constitutional questions, there are more practical reasons why the administration’s actions are dangerous. Remember when the IRS targeted conservative groups for enhanced scrutiny, seemingly based on ideology? IRS official Lois Lerner catalyzed a furor among the right when emails revealed her antipathy towards conservative groups she targeted for investigation. Conservatives should also remember the many times the government has attempted to overrule traditional religious beliefs, from the FBI’s targeting of “radical, traditional Catholics,” to management of the conscience rights of religiously oriented healthcare clinics.
 
Should this administration prevail in its effort to subjugate Harvard’s academic freedoms in accordance with its own ideological preferences, a precedent will be set for future administrations to control speech in other directions. Expanded powers of the presidency don’t just go away when a president leaves. They stay with the office, accumulating over time.
 
There are any number of less constitutionally dubious means of working with colleges and universities to introduce more heterodoxy into academic circles. And Harvard, for your part, you ought to respond to this moment by hiring at least a few conservatives – intellectuals who represent a large plurality of this country and, recently, a majority of its voters.

​A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has issued an injunction that bars the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order against the law firm Perkins Coie. The order had forbidden the more than 1,200 Perkins Coie lawyers from entering federal buildings or from holding national security clearances – crippling restrictions for many of these lawyers, their clients, and their ongoing cases.

The reason for the president’s anger at this firm is clear. A Perkins Coie attorney – who has long since left the law firm – was involved in the pass-through for Clinton campaign funds in 2016 connected to the Steele dossier, since discredited by the Justice Department Inspector General.

But the sweeping action against the firm’s many lawyers and their clients is seen by most of the legal community as overreach.

Conservative legal writer Andrew McCarthy wrote in National Review that this order is “a brazenly unconstitutional attempt to put the law firm out of business – or, just as likely, to extort tens of millions of dollars in legal services from it, as the president has succeeded in doing with several similarly targeted law firms, which decided to settle rather than continue to fight while hemorrhaging clients and employees.”

Now federal Judge Beryl Howell’s 102-page opinion provides a stinging rebuke to the administration. Judge Howell’s opinion begins on a puckish note, quoting Shakespeare’s Henry VI, “the first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Judge Howell found:

“The Supreme Court has long made clear that ‘no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics … or other matters of opinion’ … Simply put, government officials ‘cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’

“That, however, is exactly what is happening here.”

(Hat tip for the above to Eugene Volokh, PT1st Senior Legal Advisor).

In finding the executive order unconstitutional, Judge Howell quoted the Supreme Court’s opinion in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, in which the Court unanimously stopped an attempt by a progressive political appointee in New York State to stifle the speech rights of the NRA.
​
McCarthy and other conservative legal observers point out that the same neutral principles that protect left-leaning law firms also protect the NRA or the many conservative publications targeted with advertising blacklists by a secret State Department program. Volokh expects this case to be promptly appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals. It will be interesting to see if the administration, in fact, does file an appeal.

​The Oak Flat sacred site in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona has undergone a Perils of Pauline ordeal in federal courts, rescued from ruin only to be tied to the tracks again before an oncoming train.
 
This land for centuries has been the centerpiece of Apache religion and the Western Apache people’s relationship with the Creator. It is now slated to be transferred to a partially Chinese-owned mining company that plans to dig a copper mine there, mutilating a site as holy to the Apache as the Vatican is to Catholics or the Wailing Wall is to Jews. If the project proceeds, all that will be left of the Apache’s sacred land will be a crater as long as the Washington Mall and as deep as two Washington Monuments.
 
The Apache’s appeal has been repeatedly relisted for possible certiorari, or an oral argument, before the Supreme Court. Not content to wait, the U.S. government has announced its intention to jump ahead of the Court and transfer Oak Flat to the mining company, circumventing the judicial process.
 
At 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Luke Goodrich of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will present an emergency motion before Judge Steven P. Logan in federal district court in Phoenix asking him to block the transfer while the Supreme Court hears the case.
 
In a dissent from the Ninth Circuit opinion now being appealed, Judge Marsha B. Berzon declared that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) should be sufficient to protect Oak Flat. She wrote that “it would be an exceedingly odd statute that recognized and provided remedies for government-created substantial burdens on religious exercise … when it directly prevents access to religious resources.” She called the current status of the case “an illogical interpretation of RFRA” and “incoherent.”
 
This case is too important to be short-circuited or ignored. Respect for RFRA is vital to people of all faiths, which is one reason why Christian, Jewish, and other groups have joined in petitioning the courts to save Oak Flat.
 
On Sunday, Apache tribal members began an 80-mile run from Oak Flat that will end in Phoenix just before the hearing. We may not be able to join them on the run, but surely we can join them in prayer.

​With Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature on Saturday, Texas became the 16th state to embrace universal school choice.

“Gone are the days that families are limited to only the school assigned by government,” Gov. Abbott said. “The day has arrived that empowers parents to choose the school that’s best for their child.”

We only would add that thanks to the leadership of Gov. Abbott, universal school choice gives parents the ability to fully express the First Amendment by carrying their values across the generations.

That freedom will include the ability of parents to choose schools with an emphasis on STEM, on the arts, or religious-based schools.

Texas is allocating an initial budget of $1 billion to provide more than $10,000 per year for each child to pay for private school tuition. Children with disabilities will receive an additional $30,000 for extra care. Parents who homeschool their children can receive up to $2,000 a year for materials and resources. Parents will be able to access these funds though education savings accounts.

Only a few years ago, no state had universal school choice, making choice a pipe dream for most American families. With mega-states like Florida and Texas – and large states from Arizona to Tennessee and North Carolina – now embracing school choice, it is clear that school choice has moved from the periphery to the center of American life.

Where will this movement go from here? We see two fruitful avenues for further progress.

The first are states controlled by Democrats. There is no mistaking that the school choice debate has been a red-blue issue, stoutly rejected by Democratic leaders from Sacramento to Springfield. We are hopeful that as universal school choice states post positive educational results, blue-state governors will begin to rethink their reflexive opposition. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania has been notably open to considering some form of school choice for the Keystone State.

The second avenue for progress is for the House to pass the Educational Choice for Children Act, and to ensure that it remains in the reconciliation package. This bill would create a substantial resource, through tax credits, for the private sector to support private school options with donations.
​
With a third of the states now embracing school choice, it is time to consider the unfolding of this movement as a matter of national policy.

​Protect The 1st has long advocated school choice, from secular schools that concentrate on STEM and the arts, to religiously based schools, as an important way for parents to express their First Amendment rights across generations.

Michael J. Broyde, Emory University law professor, writes in The Wall Street Journal that the Supreme Court has held in precedents ranging from Espinoza v. Montana Department of Education (2020) to Carson v. Makin (2022) that if a state funds private education, it cannot exclude religious schools.

Broyde wrote:

“Critics will worry that directly funding religious schools compromises the separation of church and state. But as the Supreme Court has clarified, public money can follow the student – even into religious settings – as long as the funding program is neutral with respect to religion, and the choice of school is made independently by parents.”
​
The inclusion of religious schools, like Oklahoma’s St. Isidore Virtual Catholic School, is an important way to promote a thriving, pluralistic, First Amendment society.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard two hours of oral argument Wednesday in a case that laid bare ideological fault lines in the Court concerning the tension between the First Amendment’s two clauses on religion, one guaranteeing its free exercise, the other forbidding any establishment of religion. While the Court has recently leaned in the direction of religious freedom, the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett added a note of drama, raising the real possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave intact the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision blocking the school.

The case began when the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa created St. Isidore of Seville, a virtual Catholic school intended to serve all families, including those in rural and underserved areas. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s application. But state Attorney General Gentner Drummond took the board to court, claiming it had violated both state and federal law by approving a religious school as part of the charter system. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the attorney general, ruling that charter schools are public entities and thus must be secular.

We’ve made the case that this ruling is “eminently overturnable,” resting on a legal framework polluted by Blaine Amendments – a relic of 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry. As we explained when the Court first agreed to hear this case, the Oklahoma law’s exclusion of religious institutions from an otherwise open charter school system violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to see it the same way.
 
“Those are some of the most important cases we've had,” he said, referencing two precedents, Espinoza and Carson, “saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States.” He called Oklahoma’s policy “rank discrimination against religion,” noting that religious schools were not asking for special treatment, just the right to compete on equal footing.

Justice Samuel Alito took that concern a step further. He accused the Oklahoma attorney general’s argument of reflecting “hostility toward particular religions,” particularly Islam. Referring to Drummond’s statements warning that approval of St. Isidore would compel approval of schools run by “reprehensible” sects, Alito said those arguments “reek of hostility” and reflect an “unsavory discriminatory history” in the state’s constitutional framework.

One question that continued to arise in the oral argument centered on whether St. Isidore, as a charter school, is a state actor. If so, then its religious character would trigger establishment clause concerns. But if St. Isidore is a private actor merely contracting with the state, then exclusion based on religion becomes unconstitutional discrimination. “Casting the cloak of state action too broadly risks intruding on individual liberty,” Michael McGinley, attorney for St. Isidore, told the Court.
 
Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to agree, warning that a ruling against the school could incentivize states to exert more control over charter schools, curbing the innovation those schools were meant to foster. Gorsuch also asked a series of questions to probe whether an educational institution such as St. Isidore could be considered a private organization for the purposes of federal law, but a public institution for the purposes of state law. This probing gives a sense of how Justice Gorsuch, and perhaps the Court, might parse the principles of this case.

The more liberal justices pushed back forcefully. Justice Elena Kagan warned of a “floodgate” effect that could compel states to fund every kind of religious school, including those with doctrines “super different” from mainstream religious or secular values. Justice Sonia Sotomayor bluntly declared: “What you’re saying is the Free Exercise Clause trumps the Establishment Clause.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that St. Isidore was asking for a benefit not granted to anyone else – the right to operate a religious public school – although Oklahoma had every right to set up a secular charter system.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts’ few comments suggested that he is weighing the issue with caution. He noted that unlike Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, or Carson, this case involves “much more comprehensive involvement” by the state in the charter school program. Chief Justice Robert’s terse demeanor may be a clear signal he will be the deciding vote.

Meanwhile, Gregory Garre, representing the state, warned of “uncertainty, confusion, and disruption” if the Court rules in favor of St. Isidore, arguing it would upend the laws of 47 states and the federal charter school program, all of which bar religious charter schools. But that argument overlooks what the First Amendment demands – neutrality, not hostility, toward religion.

General Drummond’s likening of the inclusion of a Catholic school in the state’s charter program to a private takeover of the operations of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, to create a Catholic Highway Patrol, is as unserious as it is inapt. No student would be forced to attend St. Isidore. Families would choose the school, and the state’s funds would follow the child. That’s no different in substance than school voucher programs the Court has repeatedly upheld. The state didn’t design St. Isidore, doesn’t run it, and shouldn’t be allowed to exclude it for being religious.

Protect The 1st hopes the Court recognizes that this case is not about religious favoritism. It is about ending religious exclusion. Once Oklahoma opens the door to private educational providers, it cannot slam that door shut on faith-based institutions. St. Isidore deserves the same opportunity to serve Oklahoma families as any other charter school.