Samuel Alito on Religious Freedom
Alito's opinions reveal support for religious speech and expression.
In an era of increasing secularism, liberal judges relentlessly campaign to silence religious expression in general, and Christian expression and speech in particular. Judge Alito's judicial opinions stand in sharp contrast to the ever-increasing anti-God din. Strongly protective of religious expression and free speech rights, Alito's First Amendment jurisprudence is a source of hope for those anticipating his confirmation to the Supreme Court. In his 15 years on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has had several opportunities to weigh in and strongly defend freedom of religion and religious speech. A brief summary of those cases follows.
Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark (1999)
Two Muslim police officers brought suit to enjoin a police department's "no beards" policy. The policy allowed exceptions for undercover officers and those with medical reasons. The officers alleged that the policy violated their "free exercise" rights to practice their religion. A federal district court judge granted an injunction in favor of the officers, and on appeal, the 3rd Circuit affirmed. Judge Alito wrote the opinion for the court. In essence, Alito held that to waive the rule for some exceptions but not for First Amendment religious reasons was constitutionally indefensible.
ACLU v. Schundler (1999)
For 30 years, Jersey City displayed a Christmas crèche and a menorah at Christmastime. In 1995 the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city, and obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the display. In response, the city modified the display to add Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, Kwanzaa symbols and two signs stating: "Through this display and others throughout the year, the city of Jersey City is pleased to celebrate the diverse cultural and ethnic heritages of its peoples." Still not happy, the ACLU asked for an injunction against the revised display. A federal district judge granted the injunction, finding the revised display unconstitutional, but the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court. Alito, writing for the 3rd Circuit, found the modified display to be indistinguishable from those approved in two previous Supreme Court cases, and held in favor of the city and the modified display. His opinion is notable for the painstaking analysis of Supreme Court precedent, which, on this subject, had been less than clear.
C.H. v. Oliva (2000)
Alito dissented from an en banc ("by the whole court") decision supporting a school's removal of a kindergarten student's Thanksgiving poster because it included religious themes, including "I'm thankful for Jesus". He criticized the court's majority for avoiding the core First Amendment issues involved in the case. Alito argued that for government to permit some points of view on a subject but to exclude other views constitutes viewpoint discrimination – a violation of the First Amendment.
Saxe v. State College Area School District (2001)
A school district enacted an "anti-harassment" policy which prohibited any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which "offends, denigrates or belittles an individual" because of "one's actual or perceived race, religion, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics." A father of two students filed suit, alleging that his children could be disciplined under the policy by expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, or by handing out Christian tracts on the subject. Alito, writing for a unanimous court, reversed a lower court decision and held that although a school could regulate speech that could "disrupt" the educational process, this particular policy was overbroad and infringed the plaintiffs' free speech rights.
Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District (2004)
A school district policy allowed outside groups (Lions Club, 4-H Club, Boy's and Girl's Scouts, etc.) to use school facilities and disseminate literature. However, Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF) was not permitted access because of the school district's fear that to do so would violate the Establishment Clause. CEF brought suit in federal district court, and won. On appeal, the 3rd Circuit affirmed, Alito writing for the court. Since the school district opened its facilities to other groups, Alito held, it must also open its facilities to CEF. And since the "speech" involved was private speech (CEF's, not the district's), there was no Establishment Clause issue. Finally, Alito criticized the district's concern that what CEF promoted was inconsistent with the district's teaching on "diversity and tolerance," a euphemism for pro-homosexual views. Alito held that suppressing speech on this ground was "indisputably viewpoint-based" and unconstitutional.
Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania (2004)
Dennis Blackhawk was a Lakota Indian who wished to house black bears on his property for the performance of Native American religious rituals. Pennsylvania imposed fees on persons wishing to keep exotic wildlife, and refused to give Blackhawk an exemption from the fee, even though the statute gave the state discretion to waive the fee in extraordinary circumstances. Alito wrote the opinion for a unanimous 3rd Circuit panel which, citing the 1999 Newark Muslim police officer case discussed above, held that Pennsylvania's refusal to grant a waiver for religious reasons when it had the discretion to grant waivers violated Blackhawk's religious free exercise rights.
Conclusion
Judge Alito has consistently supported the First Amendment's protection of religious expression and religious speech throughout his 15 years on the federal bench. Of particular note is his support for religious speech rights of school students and equal access to schools for religious groups and their viewpoints. Though school districts and local governments still frequently fall prey to the ACLU's propaganda machine concerning the so-called "separation of church and state," Alito's opinions expose and demolish the "politically correct" but totally false line of legal reasoning used to threaten your religious liberties.
If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.
