Dear Friend,

Last June, Becket scored a unanimous win in an important case at the Supreme Court: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. You’ll no doubt remember the case, where we represented a Catholic foster agency and the inspiring foster moms who relied on them for support. Many commenters had predicted a divided court and were stunned by the powerful rebuke of Philadelphia’s attempt to shutter a religious ministry. Some tried to spin the 9-0 win as “limited” or “narrow.” A few months later, the results are in: Fulton is a strong and durable protection for religious freedom.

Fulton has already influenced and been cited in other cases. Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Ramirez v. Collier that a prisoner in Texas must have the right to clergy access and spiritual support in the execution chamber. This was a remarkable decision because it signified a shift in just a few years, moving from a divided court that did not always protect the right to clergy access, to a nearly unanimous court that does. What was the difference? In this case, Becket had filed an amicus brief separating the anti-death penalty arguments made by others from the true religious liberty implications at stake. Seventeen pages of our brief were directly cited by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion. The Chief also cited other Becket wins that have advanced religious liberty, including—you guessed it—our Fulton victory, as well as Hobby Lobby.

We didn’t file our brief in Ramirez to say something about the death penalty. Only God and the State of Texas know when Ramirez will die. But at all times, Becket is intent on protecting religious liberty—including that of a prisoner on death row. We do it because it’s the right thing to do, but also because winning or losing a fight like this has consequences for the rest of us.

What’s happening at Becket

Worth a second look. Last week the Supreme Court GVR’d Becket’s petition in Hedican v. Walmart. That is fancy SCOTUS lingo for sending the case back to the lower court for rehearing. In this case, Becket is defending Ed Hedican, a Seventh-day Adventist who had his job offer from Walmart rescinded when he requested a scheduling accommodation to observe his Sabbath. The EEOC sued Walmart, but after Walmart won in the lower courts, the EEOC decided to stop pursuing the case. Becket stepped in on behalf of Mr. Hedican and asked the Supreme Court to let him into his own case so he could keep fighting for justice. The Supreme Court listened to Becket and gave Hedican’s grievance another chance to be redressed by the Seventh Circuit.

The penalty (for private prayer) is declined. Earlier this month, Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court in support of Coach Kennedy in his case fighting for the right to practice his faith in the public square, or in this case, on the football field. Oral argument in the case is scheduled for April 25.

Coming soon at the Supreme Court... Check out our SCOTUS preview one-pager, an excellent resource on all coming attractions at the Supreme Court, from pending decisions to upcoming arguments, and petitions the Court has yet to take up. We are rounding the corner on the 2021-22 term, but as Court-watchers well know, the fun has only just begun!

Becket in the news

Healthcare heroes to vaccine villains. Becket President Mark Rienzi wrote for the National Review criticizing New York’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers which includes a medical exemption but kicks religious objectors to the curb. Alongside the Thomas More Society, Becket has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case of New York healthcare heroes who have been ousted from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits for refusing to get vaccinated against COVID-19 while their colleagues with medical exemptions carry on, business as usual.

“At Becket Law, we stand up for everyone's religious freedom rights—"everyone" includes Christian cake bakers, Muslim police officers, American Indians protecting burial grounds, and ... prisoners, even those guilty of heinous crimes.” Becket Board member Robbie George tweeted the news of victory at the Supreme Court in the Ramirez case, touting Becket’s commitment to religious freedom for all.

Serving God and country. As vaccine mandates recede into memory for most Americans, they remain in place with no end in sight for members of the military, including those with religious objections to the vaccine. Over the last 30 years, courts have applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the military context, allowing religious minorities to serve their country while practicing their faith. For example, Becket successfully defended Captain Singh, a decorated Army officer who wanted to serve his country while wearing the articles of his Sikh faith. Becket’s Daniel Blomberg and Eric Baxter argue in the National Review that a similar balance should be struck in the context of vaccine.

What we’re reading (and listening to)

Luke Goodrich on Truth Over Tribe. Becket Senior Counsel Luke Goodrich joined the Truth Over Tribe podcast to discuss the Supreme Court, the intersection of religious liberty and culture, and the infamous Equality Act which threatens the future of religious freedom in America. Listen to his insightful interview here.

How do Americans feel about Religious Freedom anyway? Katie Geary, Becket’s creative content manager, joined the First Things podcast to talk about Becket’s Religious Freedom Index, our annual poll which measures American attitudes towards religious freedom. The Index is like a fine wine, it gets better with time! As we accumulate more data, we gain greater insight into American perspectives towards our first freedom and how those attitudes are trending. Stay tuned for RFI 4.0 this fall.

Telemedicine takes a sinister turn. According to Catholic News Agency, Oregon has dropped its residency requirement for assisted suicide, meaning that Oregon doctors can remotely prescribe lethal drugs to Americans who live outside of the state. Becket is keeping a close eye on the assisted suicide issue, which has gained traction in recent years. We stand at the ready to defend the conscience rights of healthcare providers who object to participating in the intentional termination of life.