The 3 - July 7, 2024

This week's edition of The 3, with three stories of relevance to the Christian community, includes news from the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a ruling late in its term that overturned lower court action regarding government pressure on tech companies. Also, the Court has agreed to hear a case involving dangerous gender-altering surgeries and treatments for minors.  Plus, a religious charter school effort has been halted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court allows government pressure on tech companies

For years, it has been a concern among Christians that social media companies are censoring information because it is not consistent with the messages that the platforms want to promote. There have been allegations that government actor shave been pressuring platforms to censor certain types of content. 

The Washington Stand reported on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which...

...ruled that two states and five social media users did not have legal standing to sue multiple federal government agencies for flagging messages and whole accounts for suppression or deletion for spreading alleged “misinformation” about the novel coronavirus or questioning recent elections. Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s liberal bloc in the 6-3 opinion in Missouri v. Murthy, which remands the case to lower courts for further action.

The article goes on to say:

The federal government engaged in “a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign,” according to the original U.S. District Court’s ruling, focused primarily on Twitter (now X) and Facebook (now known as Meta Platforms).

But, the high court did not deal with, as the Daily Signal put it, "the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself." That article continues:

“We begin—and end—with standing,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion for Murthy v. Missouri. “At this stage, neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. We therefore lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

But, the attorney general of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, stresses there is more to be done regarding this case; the Daily Signal article quotes him:

“My office filed suit against dozens of officials in the federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history. The record is clear: the deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative. Today’s ruling does not dispute that..."

High court to take up "gender-change" surgeries and treatments

Harmful procedures that are intended to help young people change their "gender" have been increasingly exposed, and there have been court cases involving the issue, and according to The Daily Citizen...

...the Supreme Court announced it will take up an important case next term. The court will decide whether it is constitutional for states to protect children from harmful and damaging transgender medical interventions – like puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.

The article goes on to say:

The case stems from Tennessee’s Help Not Harm law (SB 1) which restricts physicians from providing puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries to minors. The law is entitled the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity Act.

The legislation became effective last July, and a lawsuit challenging the Tennessee law and a law in Kentucky was filed, with the U.S. Department of Justice joining the plaintiffs.  A federal district judge put the law on hold, but that judge was overruled by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit, which later issued a ruling that the law was, in fact, constitutional.

The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to consider the case. Zachary Mettler, who wrote the Daily Citizen article, writes:

It’s likely that part of the reason the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case is because three federal courts have ruled in various ways on the Equal Protection question, thus creating a “circuit split” among the nation’s federal appellate courts.

While the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that “transgender status” is not a protected classification under the U.S. Constitution, the Eighth Circuit held that it is.

First-ever religious charter school in U.S. cannot be established, according to OK high court

A proposal by a religious group to begin a charter school in Oklahoma has been halted by a ruling of the state's Supreme Court. The Christian Post reported that:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled against publicly funding the first-ever religious charter school in the United States, concluding that the measure would be unconstitutional.

The state’s highest court ruled 7-1 Tuesday in the case of Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board that it was unlawful to publicly fund St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.

“The framers' intent is clear: the state is prohibited from using public money for the ‘use, benefit or support of a sect or system of religion,’” stated the high court opinion. “The St. Isidore Contract violates the plain terms of Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution.”

The article says that "Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who brought the case against the board over approving the creation of the religious charter school, called the state Supreme Court decision 'a tremendous victory for religious liberty.'” However, Governor Kevin Stitt was disappointed in the ruling, stating, “I’m concerned we’ve sent a troubling message that religious groups are second-class participants in our education system..." He said he was "hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and grant St. Isidore the right to establish their school."

The lone justice who voted against the decision, Dana Kuehn, warned "Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."