The Daily Signal - Becket Fund Lawyer Argues for Religious Liberty of Catholic School

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

A catholic school’s ability to operate in accordance with its faith is in jeopardy.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in St. Joseph Parish v. Nessel on Tuesday, June 11. The case involves a Catholic school in Michigan that is asking the court to protect its ability to hire staff who align with its faith. The Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted a state civil rights statute’s definition of sex in July 2022 to include sexual orientation without any exemption for religious organizations. In March 2023, the Michigan legislature wrote this into state law, expressly prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation or gender identity.  The school’s right to hire staff who hold its views on marriage and gender is at risk. St. Joseph's asks all staff to be practicing Catholics and uphold the faith.  Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Will Haun argued the case before the Sixth Circuit Court on June 11.  He joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss what the case means for Christian institutions nationwide.  Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's the Nissan Black Friday event where you can... Wait, wait. Isn't it like a month long now? Nissan Black Friday Month? Does that work? It's the Nissan Black Friday Month event. On remaining 2025 Rogan Centra, get 0% financing. Plus, get $1,000 Nissan bonus on kicks models.

This Black Friday, you've got a whole month to catch all the exclusive offers waiting for you. See your local Nissan dealer or nison.ca for details. Conditions apply. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, June 18th. I'm Elizabeth Troutman. A Catholic school's ability to operate in accordance with its faith is in jeopardy. I spoke with Senior Counsel at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, Will Hahn, who argued the case St. Joseph Parish v. Nestle on Tuesday, June 11th, before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case involves a Catholic school in Michigan that is asking the court to protect its ability to hire staff in accordance with its faith. We'll get to my interview with Will Hahn right after this. It was 10 years ago that the Daily Signal officially launched as an alternative to the establishment press. We believed then that major newspapers and broadcast networks were leaving a massive audience of conservatives and independent-minded Americans unserved.

We set out on June 3, 2014, to inject competition into the market. Well, our hypothesis was correct. to all the patriotic Americans and supporters of our work, thank you for making the past 10 years possible. Going forward, you can expect the same insightful reporting and thoughtful commentary from the Daily Signal as you've come to rely on for the past decade. Just as our name implies, we will continue to be your signal

that cuts through the noise to transmit the news quickly and simply. More importantly, we will always tell you the truth. That is our promise. We believe that by focusing on quality journalism, the unbatch knowledge of our contributors, and insider intel, thanks to our access to policymakers, the Daily Signal's future is bright. But we can't do it without your help. You can support our work by visiting dailysignal.com slash donate. For those who have made a financial contribution in the past or are considering making a gift today, thanks for making the Daily Signal your trusted source of news.

I'm here with Senior Counsel at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, Will Hahn, who argued this case before the Sixth Circuit Court on Tuesday. Will, what is at stake for St. Joseph's parish? At stake for St. Joseph's is whether or not St. Joseph can continue to operate as a Catholic parish, a Catholic school, a Catholic institution in Michigan without having to surrender its way of life or ask permission from the government first before it exercises its religion. We have a First Amendment for a reason, and that's to guarantee the right to the free exercise of religion and not have to get a permission slip from the government before you do so. What is your argument in this case?

Argument is simple, which is that when a government is going to change its laws, expand its laws, it needs to account for everyone in the community, and that includes religious people. Unfortunately, Michigan expanded its civil rights laws in a way that denied any religious protections to any religious institutions and is willing to treat them to the equivalent of Burger King, like a public accommodation. They'd have to ask permission to exercise their religion as to all of their employees at five-year increments and lose the ability to control the campus atmosphere at their school. That's what's at stake in this case, and whether or not a federal court can come in and protect St. Joseph's First Amendment rights, or we're going to need a permission slip from a Michigan regulator first. How did oral arguments go on Tuesday? I think what the oral arguments showed is that there's no doubt that unlike what Michigan said, all the religious institutions that are concerned, about the expansion of this law have a right to be concerned because this new law arguably makes all of their conduct illegal. And that's why we're in this court case, and that's why we're on appeal.

There were arguments about whether or not there was a threat of enforcement against St. Joseph and the other religious entities. But there's no doubt that this law sweeps broadly and that it will cover all the things that St. Joseph does as a parish and as a school. And as a result of that, we need protection from a federal court. If St. Joseph's were to not acquire a religious exemption from the Michigan civil rights law, would it be able to maintain its Catholic principles? It would be doing so while at the same time Michigan would be willing and enable as it has already to investigate religious institutions simply for exercising their religious beliefs. Michigan has already taken one religious entity all the way out

to its state's highest court for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. It investigated a Catholic health care clinic over gender identity discrimination, a private employee in Michigan. is suing his former religious university over officiating a same-sex wedding. These are all the kinds of things that could happen to St. Joseph. And we need to protection from the First Amendment in federal court before the toothpaste gets out of the tube. What do you think is the most likely ruling that we're going to see in this case? I'm hopeful that the First Amendment will prevail in the end.

I think it was acknowledged by the judges that the way this court has approached things like whether or not the threat of enforcement against us is credible. is at odds with how other courts in the country do that. And if we want a consistent protection of the First Amendment, then this court should follow the national consensus and allow for religious protections and allow us to have our day in court. And what has the court decided in similar cases to this in the past? Right. So throughout the country, a repeated dynamic we've been seeing is governments will expand their civil rights laws or announce new guidance with regard to civil rights laws on. anti-discrimination and then be extremely vague about whether or not they're going to protect religious liberty. They'll say things like, we haven't decided yet, but don't worry after you're

investigated or after your sued or after you're prosecuted. We'll be sure to be really respectful of your First Amendment rights then. But at that point, it's too late. The toothpaste is already out of the tube. We're going to have to be asking for permission simply to be who we are. And courts across the country have been recognizing this. The Sixth Circuit has an opportunity to follow that national consensus. I'm hopeful that they will. And how does Michigan's redefinition of discrimination differ from that of federal and other state laws on discrimination? That's a great question, because what Michigan has done here is it has expanded its civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as prohibited categories. But it has done that without any corresponding religious protections.

And so if you think about a federal law like Title VII, the big anti-employment discrimination law at the federal level, this law when it comes to any religiously motivated decisions on employment, It simply takes religious institutions out of the scope of liability altogether. Title IX, which deals with education and sex discrimination and education, does something very similar. Religious institutions don't have to ask the Department of Education for permission before they make religiously motivated decisions on sex. They can simply exercise their religion. Michigan broke with this national consensus as well as the approach of 22 other states that have expanded their civil rights laws in this area by not allowing any. corresponding religious protections for anything that could be characterized as sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination.

And does this law only apply to institutions that take federal funding, or is it for all institutions in the state? This applies to all institutions in the state. I mean, one of the things that makes this law so capacious is that so long as you have a single employee, this law applies to you. And they're willing to apply this standard and require us to get permission to exercise our religion, even if we want to say our pastor has to follow Catholic teaching on sexuality and gender, the principal at the school, the teachers who teach religion. We would need permission slips for all of them

just to do what they're supposed to do, which is to hand on the Catholic faith. This case seems to have significance for religious institutions, not just in Michigan, but across the country. If this case got to the Supreme Court, would it challenge the Biden administration's interpretation of Title IX? I think what it would do is it would provide an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reiterate that federal courts exist for a reason. They exist to protect people's fundamental rights and that you don't have to sit around and wait until you're arrested, prosecuted, find, or be scared out of exercising your religion before you're able to have your day in court. And what are your next steps in this case? Yeah, so we're awaiting a decision now from

the Sixth Circuit, and if we prevail, our case will resume in the lower court. If we don't prevail, at this stage, we have an opportunity for further appeal. Do you know when you hear back about that? would guess before the end of the year. And could you tell us a little bit about the Beckett Fund's other work? Sure. The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty is the nation's foremost religious liberty law firm where we defend religious freedom for people of all faiths. And we've been doing this since 1994. We have an unparalleled track record of success at the U.S. Supreme Court. We are undefeated there. And we have a number of cases where we are representing religious individuals asserting their religious freedom, but also increasingly religious institutions. One thing that we've really noticed at the

Beckett Fund recently is that religious liberty debates used to be about an individual whose unfamiliar or unpopular religious practice wasn't accommodated, and they need to have that accommodation. Now increasingly, it's governments or other entities saying you as a religious institution, as a church, as a school, as a hospital, as a ministry, you don't belong in public life anymore. And so we're going to redefine the public square to exclude you. And that's raising new questions about the role of religious institutions in public life. And our cases are at the tip of the spear answering them. Oh, thank you.

It sounds like great work. It's a lot of fun and a gift. Is there anything else that you'd like to add about this case? I would just encourage your listeners to go to Beckett, B-E-C-K-E-T, Law.org, for further updates on the case. Thank you so much for coming in today. Thank you. Thanks for listening to my interview with Will Hahn of the Beckett Fund. and have a happy June 10th tomorrow.

In the meantime, if you haven't gotten a chance, be sure to check out our evening show right here in this podcast feed, where we bring you the top news of the day. Also, make sure you subscribe to the Daily Signal wherever you get your podcasts. And help us reach more listeners by leaving a five-star rating and review. We read all of your feedback. Thank you so much for listening.

Have a wonderful day, and we'll be back with you all at 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you. Executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Mary Margaret O'Lehann, and Tyler O'Neill. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more or support our work, please visitdailySignal.com.