ADF presses five major universities for records on government censorship

 ADF seeks records on participation in the ‘censorship-industrial complex’

WASHINGTON – Alliance Defending Freedom sent public records requests Wednesday to five public universities relating to their participation in the “censorship-industrial complex,” the often interlocking and hidden network of public and private censors who sought to silence protected speech. ADF attorneys are seeking the universities’ records and communications with federal government officials, social media companies, and foundations responsible for granting funds to censorship efforts.

ADF sent requests to the University of Michigan; the University of Wisconsin; Indiana University; the University of North Carolina; and the University of California, Los Angeles. The universities have created “misinformation” centers or tools designed to identify speech that the federal government has disfavored. These requests come shortly after President Donald Trump signed executive orders halting federal government censorship efforts.

“Free speech is essential to a free society,” said ADF Senior Counsel Phil Sechler, director of the ADF Center for Free Speech. “The U.S. government should defend our First Amendment right to free speech, not be its greatest threat. But the Biden administration established a censorship regime that aimed to suppress so-called ‘misinformation’ and other speech deemed unfavorable to the government. This regime included funding censorship tools created by these public universities. The American people have a right to know if their tax dollars were used to suppress certain voices and how involved state actors were—and are—in social media censorship.”

ADF is requesting documents and communications that address certain censorship red flags like “cancel” and “throttle” as well as records relating to the National Science Foundation, which is responsible for funding censorship grants.

In a report by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, investigators found, for example, that University of Michigan officials pitched the idea of an artificial intelligence tool called WiseDex to the NSF for “externalizing the difficult responsibility of censorship.”

VA School District Restores Teacher Fired Over Religious Beliefs

 CHRISTIANSBURG, VA – As a result of Liberty Counsel’s intervention, Montgomery County Public Schools in Virginia has restored a substitute teacher to her position after unlawfully removing her over religious and political beliefs she had expressed on social media. The school district had removed the newly-hired teacher when they discovered her past social media posts expressing her beliefs about gender ideology.

After Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the school district about how the First Amendment, Title VII, and Virginia law protect teachers to speak on public matters in their private capacity, the district returned the teacher to the approved substitute teacher list.

In September 2024, the teacher completed the hiring process and reported to her first substitute teaching assignment. Only two hours after beginning her first assignment, a school human resources official escorted her out of the building. That same day, the district school board entered a closed session and removed the teacher from the approved list after discovery of the teacher’s protected social media posts. Apparently, she is the only substitute teacher to be removed in this school district for expressing free speech outside of the classroom.

The district’s corrective decision to restore the teacher shows that the law clearly protects teachers to freely express their beliefs in their private capacities. Under the First Amendment, Title VII, and the Virginia Constitution, any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects. Under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the “Virginia Values Act,” it is discriminatory and unlawful for an employer to burden the free exercise of religion and refuse to hire or discharge a person with respect to their religion. 

In its letter, Liberty Counsel wrote, “…as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Virginia,…[the teacher] has the right in her capacity as a citizen to freely speak and write regarding her religious views and political views as they are informed by her faith – and neither she nor any other teacher of [the school district] may be penalized for speech expressed in a private capacity – whether that speech takes place pre-employment, or during employment but in a private capacity.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The First Amendment guarantees a teacher’s right to speak according to his or her religious beliefs and political values. The school district corrected a potentially costly mistake. Teachers have a right to express their conscience and religious beliefs in their private capacity without fear of retribution from their employer.”

President Trump Combats Anti-Semitism

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday which reaffirmed his commitment from 2019 to combat anti-Semitism in America, particularly on college and university campuses.

The order reads, “On December 11, 2019, I issued Executive Order 13899, my first Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, finding that students, in particular, faced anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses. Executive Order 13899 provided interpretive assistance on the enforcement of the Nation’s civil rights laws to ensure that they would protect American Jews to the same extent to which all other American citizens are protected. The prior administration effectively nullified Executive Order 13899 by failing to give the terms of the order full force and effect throughout the Government. This order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 and directs additional measures to advance the policy thereof in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, against the people of Israel.”

This executive order is particularly necessary since after the jihadist terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas activists began a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence on the campuses and throughout the streets of America.

Expanding on his previous order, President Trump takes forceful and unprecedented steps to marshal all federal resources to combat the explosion of anti-Semitism in America. This includes every federal executive department and agency leader must review and report to the White House within sixty days on all criminal and civil authorities and actions available for fighting anti-Semitism. In addition, the Department of Justice will take immediate action to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.

The executive order also demands the removal of resident aliens who violate U.S. law.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “President Trump kept his promises toward Israel during his first term when he moved the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and delivered the greatest breakthrough for peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. Now he continues to extend protection to college students and other Americans as a result of the horrific attack on October 7 in Israel. We finally have a leader in the White House.”

Retiring DC archbishop apologizes to LGBTQ advocates

Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the retiring Archbishop of Washington, DC, recently apologized for Catholics who have hurt “our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.” His apology decried the “intolerance and bigotry” of Catholics who oppose the LGBTQ movement, saying they have caused him much “embarrassment.” READ

Get to know Trump’s devout Catholic spokeswoman

After her debut as the youngest presidential press secretary in U.S. history, many will be interested to learn about Karoline Leavitt, a 27-year-old wife, mother, and devout Catholic. Here are some of her public reflections on faith, family, and balancing motherhood with political work.  READ

New trump executive order protects kids from ‘mutilation’

President Donald Trump issued an executive order Tuesday “protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” calling the subjection of children to genital surgeries in the name of so-called transgenderism a “dangerous trend” that “will be a stain on our Nation’s history.” READ

Compassion Is Not Necessarily Virtuous

By Bill Donohue, Catholic League president 

In our therapeutic world, where feelings too often dominate reason, it is almost sinful to question the merits of compassion. But to have real-life meaning, we need to know the object of compassion before applauding. In other words, when compassion is misplaced, it is not virtuous. 

A popular dictionary definition of compassion reads, “sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.” It cites as an example, “the victims should be treated with compassion.”

 

This is accurate. We should show compassion for the “sufferings or misfortunes of others,” such as those who have lost their homes in southern California. We should also show compassion to “victims,” such as those who have been victimized by illegal aliens. [The initial phase of the deportation roundup is targeting criminals.]

 

The latter is now a matter of contention in some quarters. Many hold that those who are now being deported are victims deserving of compassion. Which begs the question: Why is it compassionate to deport those who have entered our country illegally and have victimized innocent Americans?

 

Not to distinguish between victimizers and victims is immoral. Surely it is immoral to show compassion for Nazis and not the Jews they baked in ovens. Surely it is immoral to show compassion for child abusers and not the children. So why is it compassionate to show compassion for illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes against Americans but not their victims?

 

The same people who turned a blind eye to the sufferings of women being raped by illegals are now apoplectic at the sight of the rapists being deported. This is a classic case of misplaced compassion.

 

Those who have entered our country illegally, but have not engaged in criminal behavior, may not be a threat to the well-being of Americans, but they are not innocent either.

 

No one likes line jumpers. Kids know this to be true, which is why they object when someone cuts in front of them while waiting in line at an amusement park. Adults complain when someone jumps the line at supermarkets. And those who are waiting in line in foreign countries to enter the United States legally have every right to express their indignation at those who are crashing our borders.

 

To show compassion for line jumpers but not those who are playing by the rules is immoral.

 

Context matters when making moral judgments, but too often it doesn’t. That’s because we have allowed feelings to guide our moral compass. This is a serious mistake. Feelings should never be discounted, but they are not dispositive.

 

We need to employ the faculty of reason before cheering those making public displays of compassion. If we do, we may decide they are more deserving of our contempt.

Federal Appeals Court Grants New Hearing to Washington, DC First Responders Punished for Religio

 Federal Appeals court overturns lower court decision that required all first responders to be clean shaven regardless of religious beliefs. 

 Washington, D.C. — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision that refused to hold the District in contempt for violating a 2007 injunction that protected several first responders’ religious freedom to wear a beard while on duty.  First Liberty Institute and the law firm Covington and Burling sought to hold D.C. Fire and Emergency Management Services (“FEMS”) accountable for violating the injunction.  The court today vacated that ruling and remanded the case back to the lower court for a new hearing.

You can read the opinion, here. 

“We applaud the appellate court for recognizing that violating an injunction in what the lower court called ‘a reasonably cautious way’ is not a recognized defense to civil contempt,” said Becky Dummermuth, Counsel to First Liberty Institute. “This is a victory for all Americans, affirming that courts do not have discretion to simply overlook when the government infringes on civil rights in defiance of a court order.”   

Lucas Moench, Associate with Covington and Burling, said, “As the D.C. Circuit recognized, federal court orders are important instruments for protecting individual rights and cannot be disregarded.  While additional work remains to be done, the Court’s opinion today is an important step toward vindicating the religious liberties our clients are guaranteed under federal law.”  

In 2007, Calvert Potter, Steven Chasin, Hassan Umrani, and Jasper Sterling won a permanent injunction under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against a D.C. FEMS policy requiring that they be clean shaven and ordering that they be returned to field duty. Then, in 2020, D.C. reinstituted the facial hair policy and moved them to administrative positions when they refused to shave their beards. After decades of faithful service to the city and many years of fighting for FEMS to recognize the religious rights of bearded fire fighters, D.C.’s violation of the injunction erased what the clients thought was a legacy they would leave for religious freedom. While D.C. claims that its actions were justified by COVID-19, it failed to ask the court to modify the injunction and did not consider alternatives for complying with it.  

In today’s decision, the court concluded, “The district court applied the wrong legal framework for assessing civil contempt. The firefighters had a private right to enforcement of the original injunction, which protected their religious freedom and permanently forbade the Department from enforcing the 2005 facial hair policy against them. The district court had no general discretion to excuse civil contempt.”

Connecticut School Teacher Ordered to Remove Crucifix from Workspace or be Terminated from 30-Year Teaching Job

Teacher has been suspended for weeks and faces losing job for having small cross hanging on wall near her desk.

 New Britain, CT—First Liberty Institute and the law firm WilmerHale sent a letter to officials at the New Britain School District in Connecticut on behalf of Marisol Arroyo-Castro, a 30-year veteran teacher, demanding that the school reinstate her after she was placed on administrative leave for refusing to remove a small crucifix from her workspace.

You can read the letter here.

“Requiring a teacher to purge their workspace of anything religious is blatant discrimination that violates the First Amendment,” said Keisha Russell, Senior Counsel at First Liberty Institute. “The Supreme Court said in the recent Kennedy decision that teachers have the right to engage in personal religious expression under the Free Exercise Clause, including when students are present.”

Marisol has taught in the Connecticut public schools for 32 years. For the last 10 years, she has placed a crucifix by her desk along with other personal items such as student artwork and a church calendar. As a devout Catholic, the crucifix reminds her to pray and helps her remain calm throughout the day as she faithfully teaches her students. On Friday, December 6, 2024, she was brought into a meeting with the vice principal and abruptly told that unless she removed the crucifix by her desk by Monday morning she would be disciplined for insubordination.  She was later told she could put the crucifix in a drawer or under her desk, so students wouldn’t see it.  After she did so, Marisol started to sob, feeling as though she “hid it under a bushel,” rather than let her light shine. After many tears and prayer, she returned the crucifix to its original location. She was then suspended without pay for two days during the holiday season as the school waited for her to comply and hang the crucifix under her desk in a place the school administration called her “private space.” Now, she is on administrative leave during the grievance process. The school district said it is considering whether to terminate Marisol. 

In the personal space next to their desks, other teachers display photos of family and friends, images of Wonder Woman and Baby Yoda, a miniature of the Mona Lisa, New England Patriots football team pennant, inspirational quotes, a photograph of a statue of the Virgin Mary, and a mug referencing a Bible verse.  

In the letter, the attorneys explain, “Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Connecticut Constitution, the District may not abridge its employees’ free speech rights, nor their rights to freely exercise their religion.”  The letter continues, “Fewer than three years ago, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Supreme Court held that a public school football coach could not be fired for engaging in personal prayer, even when he did so visibly at the 50-yard line of the stadium after home games.  The plaintiff, Coach Kennedy, was represented by First Liberty Institute, co-signatories to this letter, at the district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.” 

### 

About First Liberty Institute

First Liberty Institute is a non-profit public interest law firm and the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom for all Americans. 

 

President Trump Stops Taxpayer-Funded Abortion

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week, President Donald Trump reversed the Biden administration’s radical agenda of using federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion by signing a memorandum that reinstates the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy. The Hyde Amendment bars taxpayer dollars from being used to fund elective abortions domestically and the Mexico City Policy prohibits federal funding for international organizations that advance abortion abroad, such as International Planned Parenthood and United Nations Population Fund.

The Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976, is an annual legislative provision included in federal spending bills to prevent American taxpayer dollars from directly funding abortions except in the rare cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. According to a 2016 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the amendment is estimated to have saved more than 2 million lives by its 40th anniversary. President Trump’s memorandum stated that the Biden administration circumvented this “longstanding commonsense policy” with two executive orders of his own that categorized abortion as “heath care” making abortion facilities eligible for federal aid, and then “imposed a whole-of-government effort” to embed taxpayer dollars into funding elective abortion.

President Trump’s Hyde Amendment executive order specifically revokes these two Biden orders by removing abortion from the category of “health care” and stops the government-wide effort to promote and fund abortion with taxpayer dollars.

The executive order reads, “For nearly five decades, the Congress has annually enacted the Hyde Amendment and similar laws that prevent Federal funding of elective abortion, reflecting a longstanding consensus that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for that practice.  However, the previous administration disregarded this established, commonsense policy by embedding forced taxpayer funding of elective abortions in a wide variety of Federal programs. It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Similarly, President Trump signed an additional order reinstating the pro-life Mexico City Policy that Biden had halted. The federal directive was put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at the International Conference on Population in Mexico City, which led to the policy’s name, and prohibits American taxpayer funds from heading overseas to foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion. Ever since, the policy has been rescinded by every Democrat president and reinstated by every Republican president. In President Trump’s first term, this same action defunded International Planned Parenthood and other organizations saving American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. 

The memorandum reads, “The President’s policy from 2017 is reinstated to ensure that no U.S. taxpayer money supports foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion in other nations.”

Under the policy, U.S. government global health contracts must stipulate any financial assistance will not be used to perform or promote abortion. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “Through these pro-life executive actions, President Trump is protecting the most vulnerable and returning the federal government to the side of pro-life. American taxpayer dollars should never be used to murder innocent life.”

Following Pro-Life Pardons, Attorneys Welcome President Trump’s Curtailment of FACE Act Prosecutions

  Executive Limits on Enforcement Shut Down Weaponization Practiced by Biden DOJ Against Life Advocates

(Washington, D.C.) Thomas More Society attorneys applaud President Donald Trump’s new Department of Justice leadership for an order issued on January 24, 2025, limiting enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). The directive, issued the day following Presidential pardons for 23 life advocates convicted by the Biden DOJ, stringently curtailing the recent weaponization of the abortion access law against those arrested while delivering life affirming information about alternatives outside of abortion vendors.

 

As the pardoned pro-life advocates, most represented by the Thomas More Society, those FACE Act prosecutions still on the legal docket will be dismissed. Henceforth, according to the order, prosecutions and civil actions under the FACE Act will now be permitted only in “extraordinary circumstances” or in cases presenting “significant aggravating factors.”

 

Peter Breen, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, reacted:

 

“Thomas More Society welcomes the news that the Department of Justice has been directed to dismiss with prejudice three remaining FACE Act cases brought against our peaceful pro-life clients. In all three of these cases, our attorneys have led the defense of pro-life advocates targeted by Biden’s DOJ—which had sought crushing penalties, fines, and injunctions against them, to stop them from sharing their pro-life message. These cases should have never been brought and we are thankful to the Trump administration for righting that wrong. While this handful of cases are now slated for dismissal, there is no shortage of ongoing attacks on life-affirming ministries across the country, as pro-abortion states double down on anti-life policies and lawfare. As these legal battles multiply in pro-abortion states, we will tirelessly continue to defend the entire pro-life movement.” 

 

About Thomas More Society

Thomas More Society is a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and freedom. Headquartered in Chicago and with offices across the country, Thomas More Society fosters support for these causes by providing high quality pro bono legal services from local trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. For more information, visit thomasmoresociety.org.

Vance ‘heartbroken’ by bishops’ opposition to border policies

Vice President JD Vance told an interviewer over the weekend that he was “heartbroken” by a recent statement from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops against the Trump administration’s efforts to curb illegal migration. “I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they'll do better,” Vance said in part. READ

News from the Iowa Catholic Conference

 

You are invited to participate in our Zoom webinar on Thursday night, Jan. 30, for a short update and time for Q & A on our current issues of interest. It’s scheduled for 7 p.m. Register here.

Smuggling bill passes subcommittee

HSB 15 passed a subcommittee on Jan. 22 and is eligible for consideration by the House Judiciary Committee. The bill creates a new state crime of smuggling when a person knowingly conceals an undocumented person from law enforcement, or encourages or induces an undocumented person to enter or remain in the U.S. The ICC opposes the bill.

Safeguarding American communities and upholding the rule of law are laudable goals. However, it is already against federal and state law to traffic in humans. We are also concerned the bill could be interpreted to criminalize providing basic charity to immigrants by overzealous authorities. We have seen authorities in at least one state attempt to shut down some Catholic ministries that were helping migrants.

We appreciate the language in HSB 15 that, for an offense to be committed, would require the person to knowingly be smuggling for payment or some other benefit.

Several bills supported by the ICC passed a subcommittee:

• SSB 1012 would allocate a million dollars to support “Double Up Food Bucks.” This would provide matching funds for SNAP (food stamp) benefits spent on fruits and vegetables. This helps promote healthy eating and Iowa’s small farmers too.
• SSB 1028 requires schools to present an ultrasound video to students that shows the presence of the brain, heart, and other vital organs in early fetal development, as well as a computer-generated age-appropriate video that shows prenatal human development throughout every stage of pregnancy. We think this will help students understand the beauty of a baby’s early days.
• HF 1 provides that public schools accept nonpublic school students for an activity if the nonpublic school does not offer the activity. This is in response to some public school districts ending participation agreements with nonpublic schools after the passage of Education Savings Accounts.

Response to executive orders

Upon taking office, President Trump issued many executive orders. In response, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), offered the following statement, in part: “Many of the issues President Trump addresses in his recent Executive Orders, along with what may be issued in the coming days, are matters on which the Church has much to offer. Some provisions contained in the Executive Orders, such as those focused on the treatment of immigrants and refugees, foreign aid, expansion of the death penalty, and the environment, are deeply troubling and will have negative consequences, many of which will harm the most vulnerable among us. Other provisions in the Executive Orders can be seen in a more positive light, such as recognizing the truth about each human person as male or female.”

Following that statement, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, said:

“The Catholic Church is committed to defending the sanctity of every human life and the God-given dignity of each person, regardless of nationality or immigration status. Church teaching recognizes a country’s right and responsibility to promote public order, safety, and security through well-regulated borders and just limits on immigration ... 

“While an emphasis on anti-trafficking is welcomed, several of the executive orders signed by President Trump this week are specifically intended to eviscerate humanitarian protections enshrined in federal law and undermine due process, subjecting vulnerable families and children to grave danger. The open-ended deployment of military assets to support civil immigration enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border is especially concerning … Likewise, indefinitely halting refugee resettlement is unmerited, as it is already proven to be one of the most secure legal pathways to the United States.” 

For current Congressional action alerts from the U.S. Catholic bishops, go to www.votervoice.net/usccb/home. 

Infanticide bill fails to advance

The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R.21), while the Senate failed to overcome the 60-vote procedural threshold for its version (S.6). The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require health care providers to give children born alive after an attempted abortion the same medical care that they would for any child born at that same gestational age and to transport them to a hospital.