Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Religious freedom matters but so do public health and voting rights

Opinion

Justice Neil Gorsuch

Justic Neil Gorsuch aimed elevate what conservatives like to call “religious liberty” to an exalted position among the freedoms to which Americans believe they are entitled, writes Goldstone.

Pool/Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

On Dec. 13, 2021, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied an application from 20 New York health care workers to be exempted on religious grounds from the state’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate. The challengers, all but one of whom were Catholic, had claimed that because the three available vaccines had all been derived from or tested on cells acquired from aborted fetuses, the mandate “imposes an unconscionable choice on New York healthcare workers: abandon their faith or lose their careers and their best means to provide for their families.”

To these health care workers, that the fetal cells had been obtained from cell lines decades old made no difference, nor did it matter that the vaccines contained no material from aborted fetuses, nor even that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as other religious leaders, including the pope, had announced that receiving the vaccines did not violate ecclesiastical law. “Our love of neighbor should lead us to avoid giving scandal,” the chairmen of the Committees on Doctrine and on Pro-Life Activities wrote, “but we cannot omit fulfilling serious obligations such as the prevention of deadly infection and the spread of contagion among those who are vulnerable just to avoid the appearance of scandal.”


The court’s majority, which in something of a surprise included Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, did not issue a written opinion. But the likelihood is that the nature and magnitude of the health care crisis weighed on their decision, just as it had weighed on Catholic Church leaders.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, however, did offer a written dissent, in which Samuel Alito joined. (Gorsuch also dissented in the 5-4 decision upholding a national vaccine mandate for health care workers.) Although Gorsuch claimed to base his judgment on what he termed “official expressions of hostility to religion” by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, his actual intent, which he revealed later his opinion, was to elevate what conservatives like to call “religious liberty” to an exalted position among the freedoms to which Americans believe they are entitled. (Hochul eliminated the religious exemption for health care workers because “no organized religion” sought it and those who did were not “listening to God and what God wants.”)

Ignoring that lack of vaccination would put at risk not only the health care workers themselves, but all those with whom they came in contact, Gorsuch framed the issue strictly in terms of religious persecution. “The Free Exercise Clause [of the First Amendment],” he wrote, “protects not only the right to hold unpopular religious beliefs inwardly and secretly. It protects the right to live out those beliefs publicly in the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts.” It is odd that Gorsuch would characterize Catholicism as an “unpopular religious belief,” since Catholics represent more than one-fifth of the population and two-thirds of the members of the court.

Gorsuch’s logic is convenient. He claims repeatedly that those “unpopular” religious beliefs — he avoids mentioning Catholicism specifically — have been specifically targeted, as if the law had required only those holding such beliefs to be vaccinated. In fact, eliminating a religious exemption is declaring that religion does not prevent someone, regardless of their beliefs, from being treated the same as everyone else. His attempt to equate medical exemptions with religious ones fails as well: Requiring workers to put their lives or health in jeopardy is hardly the same as refusing a course of action on religious grounds when the acknowledged leaders of that very religion, on whose past pronouncements the challengers based their refusal, have declared such behavior irreligious. By that reasoning, anyone could refuse any mandated behavior simply by pointing to a convenient passage in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon or any obscure religious text that supported their decision.

His argument also fails to address whether, if the health care workers are justified in refusing to take the vaccine themselves, would they not be equally justified in refusing to give it to others? After all, if the vaccines themselves are sinful, how can the many nurses among the 20 plaintiffs possibly be willing to encourage abortion by perpetuating the same sinful act they have denounced?

In fact, Gorsuch has it backward. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment is designed to prevent the United States from becoming a theocracy, not to encourage it. (The irony here is that a good deal of the sentiment behind that clause was to prevent religious persecution of Catholics, who were indeed a despised minority in much of the nation.) Free exercise of religion has always been balanced against other requirements of a functioning society, public health among them, and must continue to be for other freedoms, such as the freedom to move about in public without fear, to have meaning.

And Gorsuch is not protecting all religions so much as protecting only certain religions. That he favors Christianity can be easily discerned in that he makes no comment on practices that were once the province of other “unpopular religious beliefs,” such as polygamy, which once was standard among Mormons but is now illegal in all 50 states, a prohibition that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

But even if one ignores all these failings and returns to the question of intent, that “the State’s executive decree clearly interferes with the free exercise of religion — and does so seemingly based on nothing more than fear and anger at those who harbor unpopular religious beliefs,” it is necessary to ask whether Gorsuch will apply the same zeal, the same broad standard, to coming lawsuits involving state legislation targeting voting rights as he has to religious liberty.

Read More

Draining the Safeguards

Donald Trump

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Draining the Safeguards

A loyalty-forward government has formed right before our eyes. Jared Kushner has been tapped to help lead the Israel–Hamas talks. He wasn’t chosen for his expertise in delicate diplomacy; he was chosen because he’s the president’s son-in-law—and because some around him seem to treat his Jewish identity as if that alone were a qualification aligned with a pro-Israel posture. Identity and proximity are not expertise. That’d be like putting Linda McMahon in charge of the Department of Education because she once (seemingly!) went to school. Oh wait, we did that too. What are we doing here?

Zoom out from the Kushner headline and the method snaps into focus. First, elevate friends, family, donors, and media allies into roles once filled by deeply vetted and experienced professionals. Second, lean on “acting” titles and novel personnel rules to dodge scrutiny and degrade accountability. Third, purge the referees—advisory boards, inspectors general, nonpartisan civil servants—so the only guardrail left is personal loyalty. It’s governing by who you know, not what you know.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dwight Eisenhower
Without leaders like Dwight Eisenhower we will once again find ourselves on the precipice of a "world devoid of hope, freedom, economic stability, morals, values and human decency," writes M. Dane Waters.
Moore/Getty Images

The General's Warning: What Eisenhower Knew About Power

On September 28, 2025, President Trump ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to American cities for domestic law enforcement, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorizing 200 Oregon National Guard members for a 60-day deployment to Portland. A federal judge temporarily blocked the move, calling the justification for military deployment "simply untethered to the facts." When the administration tried to circumvent the order by sending troops from other states, the judge expanded her ruling, blocking any federalized National Guard deployment to Oregon.

That declaration marks a break with the boundary Dwight Eisenhower insisted upon between national defense and domestic politics. His 1961 farewell address warned against exactly this misuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

An armed law enforcement agent sits in an armored vehicle as residents of Chicago's Brighton Park neighborhood confront law enforcement at a gas station after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents allegedly detained an unidentified man riding in his car, in Chicago, Illinois, on Oct. 4, 2025.

(AFP via Getty Images)

The politics of Donald Trump’s war on cities

A masked, federal agent in combat uniform leans out the passenger window of a Jeep and points a military rifle directly at the face of a U.S. citizen in Chicago, simply for recording him.

It should send a chill down every American’s spine. President Trump’s revenge on America’s liberal cities is an authoritarian abuse of power. Americans in 2025 should not have to live in police states or with the National Guard patrolling their streets or pointing weapons at them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

People rally around a group of interfaith clergy members as they hold a press conference downtown to denounce the Trump administration's proposed immigration sweeps in the city on Sept. 8, 2025 in Chicago.

Scott Olson, Getty Images

Trump Declares War on Democratic Cities

When presidents deploy the National Guard, it’s usually to handle hurricanes, riots, or disasters. Donald Trump has found a darker use for it: punishing political opponents.

Over recent months, Trump has sent federalized Guard units into Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and now Chicago—where roughly 300 Illinois Guardsmen have been federalized and another 400 troops brought in from Texas. He calls it “law and order,” but the pattern is clear: Democratic-led cities are being targeted as enemy territory. Governors and mayors have objected, but Trump is testing how far he can stretch Title 10, the section of U.S. law that allows the president to federalize the National Guard in limited cases of invasion or rebellion—a law meant for national crisis, not political theater.

Keep ReadingShow less