Walker, Religious Liberty Ranger
The coronavirus has derailed a lot of things, but religious freedom isn’t one of them — thanks to judges who understand the Constitution.
The coronavirus has derailed a lot of things, but religious freedom isn’t one of them — thanks to judges who understand the Constitution.
One of those men — Judge Justin Walker — was just nominated by President Trump to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals two weeks ago. But not one of them had any idea that the former clerk to Justice Brett Kavanaugh would go on to land one of the most newsworthy cases of the crisis. It was the luck of the draw that put Judge Walker smack dab in the middle of the controversy between Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer and On Fire Christian Church, but the 37-year-old made the most of it, writing one of the most eloquent defenses of religious liberty that I’ve seen in quite some time.
On one side of the debate, On Fire Christian Church was trying to get creative with its Easter celebration. Like a lot of congregations around the country, they settled on a drive-in worship service that kept everyone at a healthy distance. When Mayor Fischer found out about it, though, he ordered the church to cancel. “It’s not really practical or safe to accommodate drive-up services taking place in our community,” he argued. The mayor’s overreaction was so absurd that even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) got involved, firing off a letter reminding Fischer about a little thing called the First Amendment.
“These drive-in services that this particular minister had arranged were CDC-compliant…” McConnell explained on “Washington Watch” Tuesday. “They met the guidelines. No question about that. So the mayor clearly overreached. I wrote a letter telling him I thought he was wrong.” When Fischer wouldn’t back down, First Liberty Institute filed a restraining order. Thankfully, Judge Walker granted it in a 20-page ruling that schools the mayor on religious liberty from the pilgrims to modern-day nuns.
“It was an outstanding opinion,” McConnell agreed, “and that shows you how brilliant he is. It also underscores the point you made [that] it’s not just how many judges you appoint, but what’re they like. And the Trump administration, in league with the Senate Republican majority, have put young men and women on the courts who believe in the quaint notion that maybe the job of a judge is to follow the law… So I thought Judge Walker… certainly underscored why he’s going to make a great member of the D.C. Circuit Court.”
And, as McConnell pointed out, the D.C. Circuit isn’t your average appeals court. It’s the second most important bench in the nation. “There are 11 circuits around the country,” he said. But the “D.C. Circuit ends up having a lot of special jurisdiction, because a lot of administrative cases come first to the D.C. Circuit because of its location in the nation’s capital.” Every appeals court judge is important — especially since they’re the final stop for more than 95 percent of cases. That’s why, the majority leader, explained, he’s put a priority on filling circuit court vacancies — because “they’re the most important, and the quality is just as important as the quantity.”
Fortunately, he hasn’t had to sacrifice either. Over the past three and a half years, the Senate’s been on a record-breaking pace, confirming a whopping 193 Supreme Court, appeals court, and federal judges (200, if you count the seats on federal claims and trade courts). “I’m really proud of what we’ve done,” McConnell said. “These are lifetime appointments of young men and women who revere the Constitution, and Justin Walker is a perfect example of that, and the opinion handed down this weekend certainly underscores the importance of these kinds of men and women on the courts.”
And, just as importantly, what’s at stake this November. “I can tell you what the Democrats will do if they get [control] of the entire government,” the majority leader warned. “They will try to undo what we’ve done over the last three years-plus by expanding the numbers of the Supreme Court, the circuit courts, the district courts, and filling them with people who are quite different from the ones that we’ve been installing… They’ve gone hard-Left on so many different issues. And religious freedom is an example of it.”
Judges won’t be on the ballot this fall — but the men who nominate them are. The keys to America’s courts are in your hands. Make sure you know what kind of ideology they’re going to.
Originally published here.
Greenville Easter Eggs on DOJ
In Mississippi, tickets to attend a drive-in church service were expensive — as much as $500 at Temple Baptist Church. That’s how much police were fining people for pulling into the parking lot to listen to their pastor on the radio. Greenville’s mayor, Errick Simmons, probably thought he could get away with a little local harassment. But U.S. Attorney General William Barr didn’t waste any time setting the Mississippi leader straight.
The government can’t “impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity," the attorney general argued. If you allow drive-through restaurants, then you can’t ban drive-in church. "The First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers.” And it wasn’t as if the congregation had ignored the CDC’s rules. They were so thoroughly practicing social distancing that most of them had to roll down their windows just to get their citations!
Obviously, DOJ attorney Eric Dreiband told me on “Washington Watch,” this was an instance of outright intolerance. “It’s unlawful to target religious institutions,” he insisted, “[or] to single them out for stricter treatment or broader prohibitions that may apply to other similarly situated people and institutions… So we felt it was important [to] send a strong signal to the public, but also in support of Temple Baptist Church and Pastor Scott and the worshippers there as well.”
After Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit against the mayor, DOJ stepped in to back them up — issuing a statement that left no doubt whose side the agency is on. “We explained that while it is true that governments do have, in times of emergency like this, a broad authority to protect all of us through these social distancing guidelines, [it’s] unlawful for local government, law enforcement, etc. to single out religion or religious worshipers or houses of worship…” If the judge agrees, he could issue anything from a restraining order against Simmonds to a preliminary injunction.“ The important thing, Dreiband agreed, is that they get it right.
Religious freedom matters to this administration, and the DOJ has been clear that it will not let the coronavirus be used as cover for religious hostility by government officials. "And that comes directly from President Trump and Attorney General William Barr themselves. They both feel very strongly about this. The attorney general directed us to file papers today… and we hope the justice will prevail on the case.”
Until it does, other cities and tyrant mayors should take note. This may be the first case that DOJ has gotten involved in — but if there are more power grabs like this one, it won’t be the last.
Originally published here.
Who’s WHO in the Coronavirus Cover-up
In the real world, when someone doesn’t do their job, you fire them. So when the World Health Organization (WHO), whose job it is to “guard the public health,” fails, it’s time to take a long hard look at the billions of dollars America is paying them. It’s their job to sound the alarm on outbreaks like the coronavirus. And when they don’t, and tens of thousands of people pay for it with their lives, President Trump is right to step back from the hefty investment America’s been making.
Not only did the WHO help China cover-up the widescale disaster of the virus, it also lashed out at countries trying to do their best — early on — to avoid it. Despite decades of China’s misinformation campaigns and propaganda, the U.N. health arm threw its lot in with the regime — openly lobbying against other countries’ travel bans and restrictions. It put “political correctness over lifesaving measures,” President Trump said earlier this week when he announced that the U.S. would be cutting funding to the organization. “So much death has been caused by their mistakes,” he shook his head. And America will be launching an investigation to see why.
Predictably, liberals lashed out at the president, insisting that we need the WHO umbrella to protect the world from threats like this. (No doubt they also love the fact that the organization is a very vocal promoter of international abortion.) But, as Secretary Mike Pompeo pointed out, we also need transparency. “And we need the World Health Organization to do its job, to perform its primary function, which is to make sure that the world has accurate, timely, effective, real information about what’s going on in the global health space. And they didn’t get that done here.”
This is an entity, he reminded people that “declined to call this a pandemic for an awfully long time, because, frankly, the Chinese Communist Party didn’t want that to happen. We need a health organization that’s going to deliver good outcomes for the world, and not do the bidding of any single country… We didn’t get it. And the world didn’t get that.”
In his opinion — and in so many others’ — the president’s decision is “absolutely the right call.” Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have both been on “Washington Watch” clamoring for someone to hold the WHO accountable. “Beijing’s influence [in the organization] should be rooted out,” Cotton insisted. “Instead of fighting the virus to save its citizens, the Chinese Communist Party fought a PR battle to save its own skin while enlisting its cronies at the World Health Organization to toe the Party line. That has to stop, Gordon Chang agreed, or else the WHO is just a powerful Chinese accomplice that nations like America keep funding.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
