Moving Toward Anti-Separation of Religion and State: Frank Ravitch on the Current U.S. Supreme Court

Frank Ravitch (Michigan State University College of Law) discusses America’s shift from moderate separationism to an anti-separationist approach to religion-state relations. According to Ravitch, the victimhood of social conservatives not only drives the Supreme Court’s current majority to an increasingly anti-establishment stance but also results in strong politicization of the Court and its decisions. Ravitch explains how recent First Amendment decisions, including Mahmoud v. Taylor (more because of bias evident in the majority opinion rather than the decision itself), contribute to this trend and predicts that the Court will eventually overturn Smith v. Employment Division and constitutionalize Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. He also touches on an alternative approach to both the current anti-establishment drift and radical separationism.

(more…)

Continue Reading Moving Toward Anti-Separation of Religion and State: Frank Ravitch on the Current U.S. Supreme Court

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Even When the Current Supreme Court Gets It Right the Supermajority’s Bias Is on Display

Frank S. Ravitch is Professor of Law and Walter H. Stowers Chair in Law and Religion at the Michigan State University College of Law.

On 27 June 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor.[1] The case focused on the Montgomery County (Maryland) School Board’s integration of books featuring LGBTQ characters into the elementary-school English curriculum. The board had long integrated books with characters from a variety of backgrounds, including different religious and cultural backgrounds, into its curriculum. The goal of including books with LGBTQ characters was to be inclusive because the district is one of the most culturally, socially, racially, and religiously diverse districts in the United States.

(more…)

Continue Reading Mahmoud v. Taylor: Even When the Current Supreme Court Gets It Right the Supermajority’s Bias Is on Display

Three Observations on the Catholic Charter School Case

Frederick Mark Gedicks is emeritus professor of law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed, by a four-to-four vote, a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the state could not fund a Catholic virtual charter school because this would violate anti-establishment provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Drummond ex rel. State v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, 2024 OK 53, 558 P.3d 1 (6–2 dec.), aff’d by equally divided ct., Nos. 24-394 & -396 (U.S. May 22, 2025) (per curiam), 2025 WL 1459364. (Paragraph numbers below correspond to the official report of the Oklahoma Supreme Court.)

(more…)

Continue Reading Three Observations on the Catholic Charter School Case