The Religion Law Quiz Podcast

Religion Law Quiz #91 asked how you would explain “strict scrutiny” to a kindergartner. In keeping with that theme (i.e., you only truly understand a concept when you can intelligently teach it to someone much younger and less knowledgeable than yourself), how would you, in just one sentence, describe what Title VII requires of employers for employees who seek a religious accommodation? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court did it in late June of this year. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate the religious practice of their employees unless doing so would impose an ‘undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.’ 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).” Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 2286 (2023). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to yet another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast hosted by Michael Fielding. In this episode, we continue our journey through the Supreme Court's case, Groff v. DeJoy while revisiting and exploring the theme of religion law quiz #91 in a new light. Shining a spotlight on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this podcast episode challenges listeners to comprehend its essence and communicate it in a simple sentence. The main focus is on what Title VII demands employers to do for employees seeking religious accommodations. Through an engaging narrative, the episode introduces the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII: employers are required to make allowances for an employee's religious practice unless it significantly disrupts the operation of the employer's business. In a practical demonstration of Title VII, the episode shares a real-life example of how a local amusement park accommodated a teenager's request not to work on Sundays owing to her religious practices. Highlighting the win-win scenario that Title VII can create, it emphasizes the ability to practice one's religion while keeping their job, given the employer can afford the accommodation without considerable burden. Designed as the second in a series of seven quizzes shedding light on the Supreme Court's Groffy DeJoy decision, the podcast educates, challenges, and prepares listeners for the subsequent episode. Tune in to experience a culturally and legally enriching discussion on the topic of religious accommodation in the workplace!

In Groff v. DeJoy, 243 S.Ct. 2279 (2023), the Supreme Court was recently asked to address Title VII in the context of a former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee who, as an evangelical Christian, Sunday should be for worship and rest (not work). The USPS disagreed and did not make a reasonable accommodation for him. The worker filed suit and the District Court and later the Third Circuit ruled in favor of the USPS. The Supreme Court in June 2023 issued its ruling on the appeal from the Third Circuit. We know that the certain Justices are sometimes described as liberal or conservative. We also have seen various instances in the past few years when certain Justices surprised folks by joining in the positions of others who are deemed ideologically different. So that we can properly set the table for our Groff v. DeJoy discussion, which Justices were in the majority and which Justices dissented from the Supreme Court’s holding? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: This is a bit of a trick question. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and ruled in favor of the former postal worker. For the record, however, we should note that Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Jackson. Groff v. DeJoy, 243 S.Ct. 2279 (2023) . This unanimous ruling is important to keep in mind as we will be learning about what the Supreme Court said about Title VII and religious accommodations. Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Join host Michael Fielding in the 95th episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where we delve into the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in the Groff v. DeJoy case. This game-changing case, which revolves around religious freedom in the workplace, impacts countless individuals across the nation and provides fertile ground for thought-provoking discussions and learning. In this interactive quiz episode, we discuss the case of a former United States Postal Service employee who, being an evangelical Christian, firmly believed that Sundays should be reserved for worship and rest, not work. When USPS did not reasonably accommodate his beliefs, he took the case to court, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. We also explore the intriguing dynamics of the Supreme Court justices involved in the case. Who took a stand and who offered their dissenting opinions? You might be surprised to learn the unanimous verdict in favor of the former postal worker. To further enhance our understanding of Groff v. DeJoy, we'll be reviewing the key facts of the case and unpacking the implications of a unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court. This remarkable unity amongst the justices underscores the weight of the verdict and sets the stage for our upcoming discussions on Title VII and religious accommodations. So, are you ready for Quiz 96? Tune in to our next episode as we continue to educate and inspire with critical insights into religion law. Tune in, learn and enjoy. Remember, these quizzes should not be used as legal advice but are meant to provoke thought and foster a deeper understanding of religious freedom and law. Don't forget to share this episode with others and leave a review if you found it helpful.

Religion Law Quiz #94 The last several Religion Law Quizzes have focused on key legal principles as articulated in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S.C.t 1868 (2021). Today’s Religion Law Quiz poses one final question regarding that decision. The Fulton decision specifically recognized that “‘gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’” Id. at 1882 (citation omitted). But nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled for Catholic Social Services (CSS) which would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents because of CSS’s beliefs about marriage. Why did the Court ultimately rule this way? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Because the city had created a system of exemptions from its non-discrimination policies and the city did not provide any compelling reason why it had an interest in denying CSS from the exemption while making it available to others. Here’s how the Supreme Court articulated its rationale in its concluding paragraphs: That leaves the interest of the City in the equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children. We do not doubt that this interest is a weighty one, for “[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ––––, 138 S.Ct., at 1727. On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City's contention that its non-discrimination policies can brook no departures. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546–547, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The City offers no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to CSS while making them available to others. * * * As Philadelphia acknowledges, CSS has “long been a point of light in the City's foster-care system.” Brief for City Respondents 1. CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else. The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment. In view of our conclusion that the actions of the City violate the Free Exercise Clause, we need not consider whether they also violate the Free Speech Clause. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1882 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Description Welcome to Religion Law Quiz no.94, an enlightening episode of the esteemed Religion Law Podcast with your host Michael Fielding. This episode continues our deep dive into key legal principles resulting from the Supreme Court's landmark 2021 decision in the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case. Today's quiz discusses the Supreme Court's recognition of the equal dignity and worth of gay individuals and couples, while paradoxically ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services, who denied certifying same-sex couples as foster parents due to their religious beliefs. We explore why the court ruled the way they did, based on the city's non-discrimination policies and its system of exceptions. We delve into the court's concluding paragraphs, in which it underscores that while equal treatment of prospective foster parents and children is paramount, this cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise in this specific case. The court...

Religion Law Quiz #93 A city speculates that it will be sued if it grants an exception to its non-discrimination policies to a religious institution. Does that constitute a sufficient basis for the city to satisfy strict scrutiny? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: No. Here’s how the Supreme Court addressed that question. As for liability, the City offers only speculation that it might be sued over CSS's certification practices. Such speculation is insufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny, see Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786, 799–800, 131 S.Ct. 2729, 180 L.Ed.2d 708 (2011), particularly because the authority to certify foster families is delegated to agencies by the State, not the City, see 55 Pa. Code § 3700.61. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 593 U.S. 522, 542, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1882, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to Episode 93 of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, we continue our discussion on the prominent Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision from 2021. Hosted by Michael Fielding, we delve into whether the possibility of a city being sued can form an adequate basis for the city to meet the high bar of "strict scrutiny". In the Fulton case, the City of Philadelphia suggested it might face lawsuits if exceptions to its non-discrimination policies were made for religious institutions. We explore whether this potential legal threat is enough to satisfy the rigorous criteria of strict scrutiny and discuss the Supreme Court's stance on this intriguing religious freedom issue. Through this episode, we shed light on the Supreme Court’s ruling that speculation of being sued is not sufficient to meet strict scrutiny. The reason being that if the threat of potential lawsuits were considered as standard, the government could always justify its actions, turning the strict liability standard into a nullity due to the perpetual risk of lawsuits. By navigating through this complex issue, you will better understand the practical implications of legal rulings and their connection to religious freedom. Tune in and enhance your understanding of religion law in a simple, engaging Q&A format. Remember, these quizzes are solely for educational purposes and should not be relied upon for legal advice. If you find our content valuable, share it and leave a review. Until our next episode, continue to be a positive influence.

Religion Law Quiz #92 If a city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination policies will those policies survive strict scrutiny because the city’s interest is compelling? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: That is the wrong question to be asking. The issue is not whether the city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination policies but rather if it has a compelling interest in denying an exception to the religious entity impacted by the regulation. Here’s what the Supreme Court has said: The City asserts that its non-discrimination policies serve three compelling interests: maximizing the number of foster parents, protecting the City from liability, and ensuring equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children. The City states these objectives at a high level of generality, but the First Amendment demands a more precise analysis. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430–432, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (discussing the compelling interest test applied in Sherbert and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)). Rather than rely on “broadly formulated interests,” courts must “scrutinize[ ] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants.” O Centro, 546 U.S. at 431, 126 S.Ct. 1211. The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1881 (2021) (emphasis added). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, your host, Michael Fielding, dives deep into the intricacies of religious freedom and other intricate, religion law-related topics using a crisp question-and-answer format. Episode 92 poses a thought-provoking quiz about non-discrimination policies in cities and their impact on religious groups. The moot question is whether the city's compelling interests to enforce these policies could lead to these policies surviving strict scrutiny, or if there are deeper considerations to explore. With reference to the Supreme Court's verdict in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Fielding explicates the key issue which is not solely about the city’s compelling interest in enforcing non-discrimination policies in general, but whether it has a compelling interest in denying an exception to a religious entity impacted by the regulation. The episode successfully unravels the Supreme Court's instruction that determining whether a particular regulation passes constitutional muster hinges on whether the city's compelling interest justifies the denial of an exception to the impacted religious entity. Sharing these deep insights, Fielding continues his mission to inspire listeners to be an influence for good in the world through a deeper understanding of religious law.

Religion Law Quiz #91 Today’s Religion Law Quiz is going to challenge you in a very novel way. Let’s see how you do. How would you describe to a kindergartner how a government policy can survive strict scrutiny when dealing with religion? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court explained strict scrutiny in more easy-to-understand terms: A government policy can survive strict scrutiny only if it advances “interests of the highest order” and is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (internal quotation marks omitted). Put another way, so long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1881 (2021). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to this thought-provoking episode of the 'Religion Law Podcast', where we delve deeper into the realm of religious freedom and related legal topics. Join your host, Michael Fielding, as he challenges you to break down and simplify complex legal concepts. In this episode, we embark on Religion Law Quiz number 91, where Michael challenges you to describe a complex concept in a simple manner. The challenge here is to take your understanding of religion law back to basics - explaining it as you would to a kindergartner. The question posed today - Can you explain how a government policy can survive strict scrutiny when dealing with religion? A tricky question indeed, but guided by the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, we unravel the answer. The verdict states - A policy can only withstand strict scrutiny if it advances paramount interests and is minimally invasive in achieving those interests. In simpler terms, if the government has a crucial purpose for implementing a policy and can do so without burdening religion, that's the approach to take. But the task doesn't end here. Can you further simplify this answer and explain it to a non-lawyer? By the end of this episode learn, absorb, and make these intricate law principles more accessible by explaining them to others in your life. This podcast serves as an educational platform and is not to be used for legal advice. If this episode helps you to better understand the complex world of religion law, please share it and leave a review. Remember, with every episode you learn, you become more influence in religion law. Stay tuned for the next Religion Law Quiz!

Religion Law Quiz #90 A city has a municipal code which has a formal system of discretionary exemptions for religious institutions. Will such a regulatory scheme withstand judicial review if the court applies strict scrutiny? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: No. This is a bit of a trick question because the system fails no matter what level of scrutiny the court applies. As the Supreme Court has said, “No matter the level of deference we extend to the City, the inclusion of a formal system of entirely discretionary exceptions in section 3.21 renders the contractual non-discrimination requirement not generally applicable.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 (2021). The Supreme Court then went on to say: The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exceptions renders a policy not generally applicable, regardless whether any exceptions have been given, because it “invite[s]” the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are worthy of solicitude, Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595—here, at the Commissioner's “sole discretion.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to the 90th episode of the Religion Law Podcast, the enlightening series dedicated to examining religious freedom and related legal matters. Join our host, Michael Fielding, as he reveals the inner workings of religious legal issues using an intriguing and insightful question-and-answer format. Today's query focuses on the legality and judicial scrutiny of a city's regulatory system, specifically dealing with discretionary exemptions for religious institutions. Can such a regulatory framework withstand the rigorous examination of the courts under strict scrutiny? Drawing on the 2021 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia Supreme Court decision, Fielding explains how a regulatory system with a formal allowance for discretionary exemptions fails under any level of judicial scrutiny. The assessment emphasizes the Supreme Court's argument that this system is not generally applicable as it allows government officials to decide whether a party is exempted or not based on personal discretion. The episode sheds light on the failings of discretionary exemptions, highlighting why such a legal structure fails to meet the constitutional standards due to its inconsistent application. A key takeaway from this episode is the importance of fairness and consistency in the law, especially when it comes to religious institutions. While these podcasts are for educational purposes only and not a source of legal advice, they are an engaging way to learn about religious law. The concrete examples and in-depth explanations provided in each episode make this an invaluable tool for understanding the intricacies of this particular facet of the law. Join us next time for quiz number 91, a brief but very practical session. Happy learning, and remember: keep being an influence for good!

Religion Law Quiz #89 Can the government discriminate against religion when acting in a managerial role? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: No. The Supreme Court has plainly stated, “We have never suggested that the government may discriminate against religion when acting in its managerial role.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 (2021). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast. This episode features Quiz number 89, with the probing question: Can the government discriminate against religion when acting in a managerial role? Join your host, Michael Fielding, as he delves into the case study of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2021) to provide clarity on the subject. The answer, as defined by the Supreme Court, is a resounding "no." The court maintains that governments, regardless of the roles they assume, should not use their position to discriminate against religion. This episode further elaborates on the constitutional safeguards that are meant to protect religious freedoms from being unjustly encroached upon by governmental management roles. As the podcast unfolds, you'll discover the significance and practical applicability of these overarching constitutional protections. The city, when performing any managerial role, is not excused from respecting religious rights. Understand the legal requirements that need to be met before any burden on religion can be justified. Get ready to get enlightened in this thought-provoking episode of Religion Law Podcast. This episode is intended purely for educational purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice. As always, your host, Michael, encourages you to keep being a positive influence. Pick up some insightful legal knowledge and enjoy the music!

Religion Law Quiz #88 In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 (2021) the regulations adopted by Philadelphia “incorporates a system of individual exemptions, made available in this case at the ‘sole discretion’ of the Commissioner. The City has made clear that the Commissioner ‘has no intention of granting an exception’ to” Catholic Social Services. Id. (citations omitted). Was the City of Philadelphia in the right to take this position? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: No. As the Supreme Court said, “the City ‘may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 (2021) (citation omitted). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, our host, Michael Fielding, dissects the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia Supreme Court decision from 2021. A significant case concerning religious freedom and law regulations adopted by the City of Philadelphia, that stirred much contemplation and discussion. In this judgment, the City of Philadelphia established a system of individual exemptions, made available at the sole discretion of the Commissioner. Interestingly, the Commissioner expressly stated that no exemption would be granted to Catholic social services. This led to the big question - was the city of Philadelphia right in taking this stance? Many held their views, but here's what the Supreme Court thought - the city was not in the right. The Supreme Court emphasised that if a law significantly burdens the exercise of religion, the government must have a compelling reason for it. The ruling that discretionary determination by a commissioner does not constitute a compelling reason was a key takeaway from the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia decision. Tune into this riveting episode as we continue dissecting this on Religion Law Quiz number 89. The Religion Law Quizzes intention purely lies in educating listeners about religious freedom and other religion law-related topics in a fun, question-and-answer-style format. We hope this episode leaves you with some food for thought around religion laws and their complexities. Don't forget to share it with others and leave a review if you find it helpful. Until next time, keep learning and keep influencing for the better.

Religion Law Quiz #87 Today’s Religion Law Quiz is definitely a tougher one. Let’s see how you do. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the Supreme Court stated that “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.” 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021). The Supreme Court then went on to identify two specific guidelines for determining that a law is not generally applicable. What were those two items? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question. The specific examples are at the beginning of the first and third paragraphs below. A law is not generally applicable if it “invite[s]” the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing “ ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’ ” Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (opinion of BURGER, C. J., joined by POWELL AND REHNQUIST, JJ.)). For example, in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she would not work on Saturdays. Unable to find a job that would allow her to keep the Sabbath as her faith required, she applied for unemployment benefits. Id., at 399–400, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The State denied her application under a law prohibiting eligibility to claimants who had “failed, without good cause ... to accept available suitable work.” Id., at 401, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (internal quotation marks omitted). We held that the denial infringed her free exercise rights and could be justified only by a compelling interest. Id., at 406, 83 S.Ct. 1790. Smith later explained that the unemployment benefits law in Sherbert was not generally applicable because the “good cause” standard permitted the government to grant exemptions based on the circumstances underlying each application. See 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citing Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147; Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 401, n. 4, 83 S.Ct. 1790). Smith went on to hold that “where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147); see also Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (same). A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way. See id., at 542–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, for instance, the City of Hialeah adopted several ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice, a practice of the Santeria faith. Id., at 524–528, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The City claimed that the ordinances were necessary in part to protect public health, which was “threatened by the disposal of animal carcasses in open public places.” Id., at 544, 113 S.Ct. 2217. But the ordinances did not regulate hunters’ disposal of their kills or improper garbage disposal by restaurants, both of which posed a similar hazard. Id., at 544–545, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Court concluded that this and other forms of underinclusiveness meant that the ordinances were not generally applicable. Id., at 545–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another riveting episode of Religion Law Podcast, where issues regarding religious freedom and other religion law-related topics are dissected. Your host, Michael Fielding, presents a...

Religion Law Quiz #86 In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Catholic Social Services urged the Supreme Court to overrule Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). As you may recall, “Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1876 (2021). But despite the urging the Supreme Court did not overrule Smith. Why not? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Because the City of Philadelphia had burdened the exercise of religion through its policies that were not neutral and generally applicable. Here’s what the Supreme Court specifically said: Smith held that laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable. 494 U.S. at 878–882, 110 S.Ct. 1595. CSS urges us to overrule Smith, and the concurrences in the judgment argue in favor of doing so, see post, pp. 1883 – 1884 (opinion of ALITO, J.); post, p. 1926 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). But we need not revisit that decision here. This case falls outside Smith because the City has burdened the religious exercise of CSS through policies that do not meet the requirement of being neutral and generally applicable. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531–532, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993). Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 210 L. Ed. 2d 137, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1876–77 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, we delve into a significant Supreme Court decision and explore the intersection of religious freedom rights with LGBTQ non-discrimination policies. We have previously discussed the 2021 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case and its impacts, and this episode will share further insights. Recall, the Catholic charity involved in the case believed in the sacred union of marriage between a man and a woman. Consequently, it would not place a foster child with a gay or lesbian couple or a cohabiting heterosexual couple. Today, we probe why the Supreme Court did not overrule the 1990 decision despite pressures, taking a close look at the City of Philadelphia's non-neutral and generally applicable policies. Join the host, Michael Fielding, as he breaks down this complex legal decision into understandable terms. Be ready to answer some thought-provoking questions as we navigate the complexities of religious freedom and non-discrimination policies. This episode is an excellent resource for those interested in legal affairs, religion rights, and the LGBTQ community rights. This episode is not just educational but thought-provoking, intended to shed light on some aspects of our legal system and society. Please share this episode if you find it enlightening, and leave a review. Together, we can influence for good.

The issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1874 (2021) was whether the “the actions of Philadelphia violate the First Amendment.” By way of background, “Catholic Social Services [“CSS”] is a foster care agency in Philadelphia. The City stopped referring children to CSS upon discovering that the agency would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents due to its religious beliefs about marriage. The City will renew its foster care contract with CSS only if the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples.” Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1874 (2021). When we hear of legal battles such as this we tend to make snap pre-judgments about one side or the other before considering all the facts. With that in mind, let’s see how you do on this series of True/False questions about the facts of the Fulton case. 1 – True or False: CSS would not certify an unmarried heterosexual couple for adoption. 2 – True or False: CSS would not certify a married homosexual couple for adoption. 3 – True or False: CSS would not object to certifying a gay or lesbian person who is single. 4 – True or False: If a same-sex couple sought certification from CSS then CSS would refer the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in Philadelphia that would certify same-sex couples. (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: The response to all four questions is “True”. Here’s how the Supreme Court articulated the facts: The religious views of CSS inform its work in this system. CSS believes that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Because the agency understands the certification of prospective foster families to be an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couples—regardless of their sexual orientation—or same-sex married couples. CSS does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents or to placing gay and lesbian children. No same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS. If one did, CSS would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in the City, all of which currently certify same-sex couples. For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (2021) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where our host, Michael Fielding, shares insights on religious freedom and religion law-related topics through a short Q&A format. Today's episode dives into the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The focus is on introducing and detailing the key facts of the case. In this 85th Religion Law Quiz, we first take a closer look at Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster care agency in Philadelphia. The city stopped referring children to CSS upon discovering that the agency would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents due to religious beliefs about marriage. We also unravel what CSS would do or not do regarding foster care certifications. The host then proposes four true-or-false questions to test listeners' knowledge about the facts in the Fulton case. By answering these questions, listeners gain a better understanding of this complex case that battles same-sex certification and religious freedom. Importantly, this episode summarises the supreme court's perspective on CSS's actions based on religious views regarding marriage and the certification process for prospective foster families. This pivotal groundwork set in this episode will enable listeners to follow along in...

Neither Ronnie nor Janet are attorneys but they are keenly interested about federal law regarding religion. Where can Ronnie or Janet go if they want to find quick helpful resources about federal religion law? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: One good place to start is at the Department of Justice’s publications page found at https://www.justice.gov/crt/publications which has several helpful publications on the following topics: Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty (near the bottom of the page) Implementation Memo for Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace Combating Religious Discrimination Today: Final Report Report on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) September 2020 Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast. Hosted by Michael Fielding, this episode presents Religion Law Quiz number 84, aimed at educating listeners about identifying credible online resources related to federal religion law. In a succinct, hypothetical scenario, Michael introduces two individuals, Ronnie and Janet, who are seeking helpful resources about federal religion law on the internet. The answer revealed might surprise you as Michael directs you to the unassuming yet informative gems found in the Department of Justice's publications page. Housed on the page are numerous valuable publications on various matters involving religion law. Noteworthy titles include the Attorney General's Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty, Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace, and the report on the 20th anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. These resources not only provide a quick summary and high-level overview of the current state of the law but also prove helpful for anyone eager to deepen their understanding or provide a quick primer on religion law. Remember, these religion law quizzes are decidedly enlightening but do not substitute legal advice. After all, knowledge is power, and sharing it only multiplies its effect. So, if you find this episode constructive, please share it and spread the word. Stay tuned for more insightful quizzes, and until then, keep being an influence for good.

Religion Law Quiz ## 82 and 83 are closely related. As you’ll recall, in Religion Law Quiz $82 we learned that the Montana Supreme Court erred in its analysis in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue by applying state law first instead of federal law. Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the Supremacy Clause. In very succinct terms, how does the Supremacy Clause apply to State Court judges? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question in Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. “[T]his Clause creates a rule of decision” directing state courts that they “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal law[ ].” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 324, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015). Given the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the application of the no-aid provision here, the Montana Supreme Court should have “disregard[ed]” the no-aid provision and decided this case “conformably to the [C]onstitution” of the United States. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). That “supreme law of the land” condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. Id., at 180. They are “member[s] of the community too,” and their exclusion from the scholarship program here is “odious to our Constitution” and “cannot stand.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2023, 2025. Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262–63 (2020) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. I'm your host, Michael Fielding, and today, we discuss the significant implications of the Supremacy Clause on state law and state court judges. Following our persistent exploration of the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue decision, we delve into how the Supremacy Clause works in practice. We dive into a real-life example, with a visit to the Missouri State Capitol, to help illustrate the point, understanding the critical role states play in governance and how significantly state decisions can impact our daily lives. Yet, despite the importance of state laws and jurisdictions, the U.S. Constitution holds the ultimate power, defining the bearings for state court judges on how to approach potentially conflicting state laws. Quoting the Supreme Court's words, we explain how state court judges must prioritize and adhere to what the U.S. constitution states even if it conflicts with state laws. This principle of a higher ruling over a lower law is fundamental to our understanding of the constitution and governance. Get ready for a sneak peek into our forthcoming episode, where we're going to delve into Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a landmark Supreme Court decision. Don't forget: our religion law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. Share this episode if you find it useful, and leave a review to let us know how we're doing. Until our next discussion, keep being an influence for good.

Religion Law Quizzes #82 and #83 are closely related and they (particularly Religion Law Quiz #83) highlight some really important foundational legal principles in federalism form of government. So, with that in mind, let’s see how you do. In Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, the Montana Supreme Court had entirely invalidated a scholarship program because the Montana Supreme Court believed it violated the Constitution’s “no-aid” provision which prohibited aid to religious affiliated schools. On appeal to the Supreme Court the Montana Department of Revenue argued that there was no Free Exercise violation because the program had been wholly eliminated by the Montana Supreme Court. But the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument. Why did the Supreme Court rule that the Free Exercise Clause had been violated when the Montana Supreme Court had wholly voided the scholarship program? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: In a nutshell, the Montana Supreme Court erred by first applying state law rather than federal law. But even that short anecdotal answer misses some important nuances. Please read the following four (4) paragraphs from the Supreme Court’s decision. The Department argues that, at the end of the day, there is no free exercise violation here because the Montana Supreme Court ultimately eliminated the scholarship program altogether. According to the Department, now that there is no program, religious schools and adherents cannot complain that they are excluded from any generally available benefit. Two dissenters agree. Justice GINSBURG reports that the State of Montana simply chose to “put all private school parents in the same boat” by invalidating the scholarship program, post, at 2281, and Justice SOTOMAYOR describes the decision below as resting on state law grounds having nothing to do with the federal Free Exercise Clause, see post, at 2292, 2294 – 2295. The descriptions are not accurate. The Montana Legislature created the scholarship program; the Legislature never chose to end it, for policy or other reasons. The program was eliminated by a court, and not based on some innocuous principle of state law. Rather, the Montana Supreme Court invalidated the program pursuant to a state law provision that expressly discriminates on the basis of religious status. The Court applied that provision to hold that religious schools were barred from participating in the program. Then, seeing no other “mechanism” to make absolutely sure that religious schools received no aid, the court chose to invalidate the entire program. 393 Mont. at 466–468, 435 P.3d at 613–614. The final step in this line of reasoning eliminated the program, to the detriment of religious and non-religious schools alike. But the Court's error of federal law occurred at the beginning. When the Court was called upon to apply a state law no-aid provision to exclude religious schools from the program, it was obligated by the Federal Constitution to reject the invitation. Had the Court recognized that this was, indeed, “one of those cases” in which application of the no-aid provision “would violate the Free Exercise Clause,”id., at 468, 435 P.3d at 614, the Court would not have proceeded to find a violation of that provision. And, in the absence of such a state law violation, the Court would have had no basis for terminating the program. Because the elimination of the program flowed directly from the Montana Supreme Court's failure to follow the dictates of federal law, it cannot be defended as a neutral policy decision, or as resting on adequate and independent state law grounds. Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2261–62 (2020) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN...

A state passes a law which, in the view of the state, protects the religious liberty of taxpayers by ensuring that their taxes are not directed to religious organizations (because the law specifically prohibits any religious institution from receiving state aid), and the law safeguards the freedom of religious organizations by keeping the government out of their operations. Does the law pass constitutional muster? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: No. As you can tell from the past few Religion Law Quizzes we have been focusing on the Supreme Court’s 2020 Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue decision. It is important to remember that the Supreme Court invalidated the law because it specifically discriminated on the basis of religion. The State of Montana sought to justify its position by asserting: “that the no-aid provision actually promotes religious freedom. In the Department's view, the no-aid provision protects the religious liberty of taxpayers by ensuring that their taxes are not directed to religious organizations, and it safeguards the freedom of religious organizations by keeping the government out of their operations.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020). But the Supreme Court rejected this position stating: An infringement of First Amendment rights, however, cannot be justified by a State's alternative view that the infringement advances religious liberty. Our federal system prizes state experimentation, but not “state experimentation in the suppression of free speech,” and the same goes for the free exercise of religion. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260–61 (2020) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast hosted by Michael Fielding. This episode is particularly interesting as it dives deep into the interface between state laws and religious liberty. A quiz format makes up a significant portion of this episode, provoking thought and promoting engagement for the listeners. The key discussion revolves around a hypothetical law that, in essence, prohibits aid to religious institutions to prevent tax money from being directed towards them. The law's rationale is to preserve the religious liberty of taxpayers while also protecting the autonomy of religious organizations by keeping the state out of their affairs. The episode delves into whether such a law passes constitutional muster. The episode also reiterates the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinosa versus Montana Department of Revenue decision as an example. The Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it discriminates based on religion. Michael Fielding provides a fascinating discussion on the practical implications of this decision, touching on the concepts of status-based discrimination, state experimentation, and the importance of the First Amendment. This episode not only imparts knowledge but also encourages listeners to think critically about the intersection of religion, law, and constitutional rights. The episode concludes with an announcement of the upcoming quizzes and a plea to listeners to share and review the episode if they find it helpful. A must-listen for anyone interested in religion law and the freedom of religion.

True or False: The protections of the Free Exercise Clause depend on a judgment-by-judgment analysis regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: False. Here’s what the Supreme Court said in this regard three years ago: “The protections of the Free Exercise Clause do not depend on a ‘judgment-by-judgment analysis’ regarding whether discrimination against religious adherents would somehow serve ill-defined interests.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2260 (2020) (emphasis added). Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to the Religion Law Podcast, hosted by Michael Fielding. In episode 80, we delve deep into the Supreme Court's 2020 Espinoza versus Montana Department of Revenue ruling, which challenged the exclusion of students attending religious private schools from a general state scholarship program. Through an engaging quiz format, listeners can test their understanding of this landmark case. We scrutinize an interesting aspect of the decision: the supposed dependence of free exercise clause protections on a judgment-by-judgment analysis, against hate fuelled by ill-defined interests. Will you agree with the majority of listeners who discern that something doesn't quite fit with that assertion? Participate in our review of the Supreme Court's precise words and their implications. As part of the discussion, we address the issues that case-by-case determinations present for litigants and their attorneys. How does an undefined interest or an ambiguous ruling affect a client's case? As a legal expert, how do you deal with such uncertainty? We delve into the benefits of an objective versus a subjective analysis. Join us in this exploration of a key ruling that informs our understanding of the free exercise clause and its application to religious schools. Enjoy our fun quiz format that is as educational as it is challenging. Remember, our discussions are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be used as legal advice. Please share this episode, leave a review, and continue to be an influence for good. We look forward to welcoming you to our next Religion Law Quiz. Want to learn more? Find us on your preferred podcast platform and tune in to the next Religion Law Podcast episode.

As attorneys we talk about doing pro bono work. But guess what? The universe doesn’t revolve around us. << (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: Here is a list of possible things non-attorneys can do to help promote pro bono work: —Educate yourself regarding how common legal problems are resolved. —Be a leader – Challenge & organize attorneys in your church or organization to become competent in an area of law and then serve others. —Create/sponsor pro bono clinics —Give rides to and from court —Refer people to existing pro bono programs Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to the 79th episode of the Religion Law Podcast, your go-to place for learning about religious freedom and other law-related matters. In this episode, we steer away from discussing Supreme Court decisions to focus on something equally valuable – the world of pro bono work, a typically attorney-dominated field. However, host Michael Fielding asserts that it is not only attorneys who can have a significant impact; he encourages non-lawyers to play a vital role in fostering and promoting pro bono legal work. This episode urges listeners, especially non-attorneys, to consider various ways they can contribute to pro bono work. For instance, they could educate themselves on common legal problems, organize attorneys in their community for competence in specific legal areas, help establish pro bono clinics, offer transportation to and from court, and spread awareness about existing pro bono programs. It emphasizes that anyone, regardless of their profession, can facilitate access to legal assistance those in need. While this episode is relatively short, it effectively plants seeds of thought on how non-attorneys can support pro bono work. Sticking true to its question-answer format, it leaves listeners with a thought-provoking query about what they might do when they come across someone in need of pro bono legal help. Ultimately, no matter what your line of expertise is, this episode demonstrates how you are capable of making a difference in the sphere of legal aid. After this brief yet impactful exploration, the podcast will continue its analysis of the Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case in the imminent 80th quiz. Join us then for more insightful discussions on religion and law.

In Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), the Montana Department of Revenue sought to distinguish that case from the Supreme Court’s Trinity Lutheran decision a few years earlier by arguing that “Trinity Lutheran does not govern here because the no-aid provision applies not because of the religious character of the recipients, but because of how the funds would be used—for ‘religious education.’” Id. at 2255. But the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Why did it reject that argument? (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: The reason is because the Espinoza case “turns expressly on religious status and not religious use.” Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256 (2020) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court went on to note that “Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses.” Id. Here is a bit more extensive quote from the decision to help put it more in perspective: This case also turns expressly on religious status and not religious use. The Montana Supreme Court applied the no-aid provision solely by reference to religious status. The Court repeatedly explained that the no-aid provision bars aid to “schools controlled in whole or in part by churches,” “sectarian schools,” and “religiously-affiliated schools.” 393 Mont. at 463–467, 435 P.3d at 611–613. Applying this provision to the scholarship program, the Montana Supreme Court noted that most of the private schools that would benefit from the program were “religiously affiliated” and “controlled by churches,” and the Court ultimately concluded that the scholarship program ran afoul of the Montana Constitution by aiding “schools controlled by churches.” Id., at 466–467, 435 P.3d at 613–614. The Montana Constitution discriminates based on religious status just like the Missouri policy in Trinity Lutheran, which excluded organizations “owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity.” 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2017. The Department points to some language in the decision below indicating that the no-aid provision has the goal or effect of ensuring that government aid does not end up being used for “sectarian education” or “religious education.” 393 Mont. at 460, 466–467, 435 P.3d at 609, 613–614. The Department also contrasts what it characterizes as the “completely non-religious” benefit of playground resurfacing in Trinity Lutheran with the unrestricted tuition aid at issue here. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31. General school aid, the Department stresses, could be used for religious ends by some recipients, particularly schools that believe faith should “permeate[ ]” everything they do. Brief for Respondents 39 (quoting State ex rel. Chambers v. School Dist. No. 10, 155 Mont. 422, 438, 472 P.2d 1013, 1021 (1970)). See also post, at 2285, 2288 (BREYER, J., dissenting). Regardless, those considerations were not the Montana Supreme Court's basis for applying the no-aid provision to exclude religious schools; that hinged solely on religious status. Status-based discrimination remains status based even if one of its goals or effects is preventing religious organizations from putting aid to religious uses. Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2256, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2020) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another insightful episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where host Michael Fielding sheds light on religious freedoms and other religion law-related topics. Diving into The Supreme Court's ruling on religious bias, this episode centers around episode number 78, where a law case, Espinoza v....

True or False: The Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. (Scroll down for the answer) Answer: True. Here’s what the Supreme said in that regard three years ago: The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We have recognized a “ ‘play in the joints’ between what the Establishment Clause permits and the Free Exercise Clause compels.” Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. ––––, ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2019, 198 L.Ed.2d 551 (2017) (quoting Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 718, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004)). Here, the parties do not dispute that the scholarship program is permissible under the Establishment Clause. Nor could they. We have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause is not offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs. See, e.g., Locke, 540 U.S. at 719, 124 S.Ct. 1307; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). See also Trinity Lutheran, 582 U.S., at ––––, 137 S.Ct., at 2019–2020 (noting the parties' agreement that the Establishment Clause was not violated by including churches in a playground resurfacing program). Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, 207 L. Ed. 2d 679, 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2254 (2020) (emphasis added) Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to the bar. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein. HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where we delve into religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through engaging quiz-based discussions. In this particular installment, we'll be exploring quiz number 77 and discussing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision: Espinoza v. Montana, Department of Revenue. The Espinoza case revolves around the parents of students attending a private Christian school who sued the Montana Department of Revenue. The Department had created a rule excluding religiously-affiliated private schools from a state-established scholarship program, arguing that it would otherwise constitute state aid to religion, which could violate the Establishment Clause. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court, thereby setting the stage for a significant constitutional debate. In this episode, we especially focus on the central question of the quiz: Is the Establishment Clause offended when religious observers and organizations benefit from neutral government programs? This particular query draws on past court decisions such as the Trinity Lutheran case and examines the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. We then finish by delving into the implications of the Espinoza decision. The key takeaway posits that a neutral government program, regardless of its benefits to a religious organization, does not violate the Establishment Clause. Tune in to learn more about this important landmark decision that has implications for the boundaries of religious freedom and state aid. As we wrap up this episode, we remind listeners that Religion Law quizzes are meant for educational purposes and not to be relied upon as legal advice. If you have found this episode insightful, please share it and leave a review. Stay tuned for our continued exploration of the Espinoza decision in quiz number 78.