The justices are defying their procedural rules to rewrite the Constitution.
In a dissent, two conservative justices invite a case to overturn a precedent on religion in the workplace that they dislike.
A novel written by a 12th-century Arab writer about a boy alone on an island influenced the Daniel Defoe classic ‘Robinson Crusoe.’
More broadly, one new study found, “the politicization of religious freedom has infiltrated every level of the federal judiciary.”
Even as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken similarly condemned abuses and oppression from China to Syria to Venezuela, he overturned aspects of the Trump administration’s human rights agenda.
The decree, which applies to public schools in the Muslim-majority country, came after a Christian father confronted an official at his daughter’s school.
The case was the latest in a series of disputes over the presence of spiritual advisers in execution chambers that have bitterly divided the justices.
The ruling followed a similar one in a case from New York and provided more evidence of a change in the court’s direction after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The decision offers a warning for the future.
Nicolas Cadène sees the failings of France’s secular model even as he upholds it.
Will she join the Supreme Court’s grievance conservatives?
Readers are mostly critical of a decision rejecting New York’s restrictions. One cites a recent Op-Ed by the pope.
The justices issued six opinions, several of them unusually bitter, in upholding challenges from churches and synagogues to state pandemic restrictions on religious services.
In earlier rulings related to coronavirus restrictions in California and Nevada, the court had taken the opposite approach. But its membership has changed since then.
The general question in cases in California, Nevada and New York is whether government officials or judges should calibrate responses to the public health crisis.
Their unlikely ally may have lost the White House, but Christian nationalists still plan to win the war.
The conservative justice’s pointed remarks, which he made in a speech to the Federalist Society, reflected thoughts he has expressed in his opinions.
The president-elect’s approach to religion made a critical difference in key battleground states.
The justices considered whether a city may exclude a Catholic social services agency from its foster care system because it refuses to work with gay couples.
Once denounced by French leaders, the images are now defended across the political spectrum, widening a divide with Muslim nations and leaving many French Muslims alienated.
If confirmed, she may soon have to reconcile her Catholic morality and the law over a death penalty case.
Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network and Roger Severino, a senior health and human services official, have worked to reshape social policy and the courts they need to uphold it.
Examine her jurisprudence, not her religious practice.
I almost always side with protecting houses of worship. But there are limits.
Once a vast prison ground for political exiles, the banks of the Ket River are now home to a range of solitary settlements.
Critics of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee argue that pious Catholics are a problem for liberalism. They have a point.
Joseph Biden’s supporters are highlighting his Catholic faith and values while President Trump, with a Supreme Court selection looming, is operating on the culture-war turf he prefers.
Drawn by jobs or land offered by Muslim groups, some Hindus, facing discrimination and a virus-ravaged economy, are essentially converting to survive.
The shooting of Tahir Ahmad Naseem drew strong U.S. condemnation of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which are often used to persecute and intimidate religious minorities.
The fight over limits on church attendance divides the justices.
The church said it was subject to more severe limits than casinos and restaurants.
In a speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it was important “for every American, and for every American diplomat,” to recognize how the founders understood “unalienable rights.”
Among them: Religion got a place at the public table long reserved for secular society.
Two decisions this week gave religious employers greater power to fire workers and limit birth control coverage. Polls suggest that on such issues of religious exemptions, most Americans disagree with the court.
A victory for religious employers is a defeat for their employees — and for the Affordable Care Act.
Recent decisions are about safeguarding pluralism, not taking sides in the culture wars.
Justices rule that employers can stand between female workers and their health care.
The justices upheld regulations from the Trump administration that allowed employers with religious objections to decline to provide contraception coverage.
It does not have to be all or nothing.
Another conservative justice’s arc bends toward juristocracy.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination was a blow for religious freedom. That’s a problem — for both sides.
Ruben Gutierrez’s lawyers argued that he had the right to have a Christian chaplain present during his execution.
A ruling that protects the rights of gay and transgender workers could impact how conservative groups operate their own institutions.
The government is allowing federal pandemic aid to pay for clergy salaries, something that once would have been unthinkable.
The polarization roiling the country has the Supreme Court in its grip.
A California church argued that restrictions on public gatherings treated houses of worship worse than many businesses.
Two recent cases on religion are about more than the tales they tell.
The cases are the latest in a series the court has had before it considering the relationship between church and state.
Even before the pandemic, many parents rejected readily available, safe and effective immunizations that can protect their children.
In the New York area, the epidemic has killed influential religious leaders and torn through large, tight-knit families.