A newly constituted United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, handed down three 5-4 split decisions recently that have important implications for Christians.  In three seemingly unrelated issues, the new make-up of the Supreme Court is clearly having an impact.  On the matters of issue advertising, government funded faith-based initiatives, and public school student discipline, the newly constituted Supreme Court made three strong statements that support the view that the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original intent of the Founders.

With Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gone, her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, joined Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts to form a more conservative five member voting block that carried the day in all three decisions.  Justice O’Connor had generally joined Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg to form a winning liberal voting block.

Issue Advertising

The first decision in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, is particularly important for Conservative issue oriented groups.  The Court cut back on some of the more draconian free speech restrictions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law passed by Congress in 2002.  The previous Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist had upheld this controversial law as constitutional.  The new Roberts Court ruled 5-4 that the provision of McCain-Feingold prohibiting groups from running television, radio, and print ads 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary election was unconstitutional because it violated free speech rights.

The FEC (Federal Election Commission) case involved a Wisconsin pro-life group that was barred under McCain-Feingold from airing ads urging constituents to contact their Senators about President Bush's judicial nominees during the final two months of the 2004 election.  Some of the Senators being contacted were running for reelection at the time.  The Court ruled that these judicial nomination ads were "issue advocacy" and not campaign speech.  Therefore, the campaign finance laws did not prohibit them. 

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, upheld an important “original intent” principle of Constitutional interpretation.  He recognized that political speech is the most important first amendment free speech protection. Non-profit organizations, including Christian groups, will now have much wider freedom to purchase ads and talk about issues even during election campaigns.

Faith-Based Initiative Challenge

In a second case, Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Court also issued a 5-4 split decision that will allow President Bush's faith-based initiative program to continue.  This lawsuit was brought to court by a group of atheists and agnostics who were angry over the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which allows religious social service groups to apply for government funding on the same basis as secular groups.

The Court’s ruling in Hein denied standing to a tax payer who challenged expenditures of taxpayer funds for religious organizations.  The Court said that taxpayers do not have grounds to challenge Executive Branch expenditures.  Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Scalia and Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that if taxpayers could challenge government expenditures just because they didn’t like them, the federal courts would run the risk of becoming “general complaint bureaus.”

Disciplining High School Students

Finally, in a third 5-4 decision, Morse v. Frederick, the Court ruled that public schools have the right to discipline students for certain types of speech.  This case involved an Alaska high school principal who suspended a student for displaying a banner with the message "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" during a school activity.  The principal thought the sign was intended to promote drug use, which violated the school's mission.   

Justice Roberts, again writing for the Court’s majority, said: “We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.”

While some free speech groups are worried that this decision might cut back on student free speech protections, we are encouraged that the Court is again recognizing that school officials have a duty as well as a right to restrict speech involving activities that do not promote the best interests of students, such as drug use.  Such common sense is greatly needed in our public schools today.

Public school officials should be able to distinguish between activities, such as Bible Clubs, that promote student well being and those, like drug use, that do not.  In a magnificently written concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas definitely represented the “original intent” viewpoint.  Justice Thomas noted that when public schools first originated in America, neither parents or students had expectations regarding student free speech rights that have become commonplace today.  For that reason, Justice Thomas maintains that student free speech rights are not a Constitutional requirement and never should have been treated as such.

Original Intent Prevails

All of these decisions were close votes that could have gone the other way before President Bush's appointment of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court.  Elections do have consequences.  We pray that God will continue to move our nation in a direction that will be pleasing to Him.  Please continue to pray for revival in America and that God will pour out His grace and mercy on our nation by granting us good leaders.