A Draft Agreement in the Caucasus—and U.S. Engagement

Earlier this month, Armenia and Azerbaijan initialed a draft peace agreement at the White House. The agreement, brokered by the Trump administration, has not yet been signed or ratified, but its key terms are now public—and deeply controversial.

Under the deal, Armenia formally renounces its claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and grants the United States a 99-year lease on a new transit corridor through its southern border, part of what the administration is calling the TRIPP initiative. In return, Azerbaijan pledges to recognize Armenia’s current borders and allow reciprocal, unimpeded transit.

For Armenia, the concessions are painful—particularly after the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh’s Armenian population in 2023. But the deal may offer short-term stability and give Armenia time to rebuild. Christian advocacy groups in the U.S., long concerned about religious prisoners and displaced Christian communities in the region, played a notable role in urging American involvement. President Trump’s public reference to “Christian” detainees was no accident.

In a new piece for First Things, I explore what this draft agreement means for the region, why the U.S. chose to intervene now, and whether the engagement we’re seeing today signals a deeper and more lasting American commitment—or simply a pause before the next crisis.

You can read the full essay here.

Movsesian on the Washington State Clergy Reporting Law

Delighted to be interviewed in today’s National Catholic Reporter on the Washington State law that requires priests to report information about child abuse that they receive during the sacrament of confession. Here’s a snippet:

At the heart of this legal case is a conflict between the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees religious freedom, and the state’s compelling interest to prosecute child sex abuse, said Mark Movsesian, director of the Mattone Center for Law and Religion at St. John’s School of Law in New York. He said that if a law selects religion for “disfavored treatment,” the state must prove why the law is necessary and that it is as unrestrictive as possible. Movsesian also said that the Washington law targets clergy-penitent privilege within the sacrament of confession, but does not lift attorney-client privilege in the reporting of abuse cases. 

“I think it’s going to be hard for Washington to say: ‘We have a compelling interest in having priests reveal what they learned in confession, but we don’t have a compelling interest in making lawyers reveal what they hear in their client’s confidence,'” Movsesian said.  

You can read the article here.

Mattone Center Alum Dan Vitagliano to Clerk for Supreme Court

Exciting news! I can announce today that Mattone Center alum Dan Vitagliano will clerk for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States in October Term 2027. Dan, who graduated from St. John’s Law summa cum laude in 2020, was a student fellow in the Mattone Center for two years, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, and is the first graduate of St. John’s ever to be selected for a Supreme Court clerkship.

Following graduation, Dan clerked for Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ’83 of the Southern District of New York and Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit, and worked as a Constitutional Law Fellow at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, where he litigated constitutional cases involving religious liberty and free speech in federal and state courts. He is currently an associate at Consovoy McCarthy in DC.

I’ll have more about Dan in a future post, but for now I just want to say how happy and proud all of us at the Mattone Center are for him. I’m sure my former colleague and co-director of the Center, Marc DeGirolami, joins us. Congratulations, Dan!

Remembering David Souter

Me with the Boss, October Term 1992

At the Volokh site yesterday, I have a post remembering my former boss, Justice David Souter, who passed away last week at the age of 85. He was a remarkable person and a true gentleman, always kind and generous to his clerks, even when we messed up:

One memory from that year stands out for me especially. As a clerk, one of my responsibilities was proofreading final drafts of opinions. It was a routine thing, but on one such occasion, when Justice Souter was writing the opinion for the Court, I accidentally inserted the word “not” into a sentence, reversing its meaning. By the time I discovered my mistake, Justice Souter was already on the bench announcing the ruling, and the clerk’s office had already released the opinion to the press. There was no way to fix it. 

I was mortified. I had messed up a Supreme Court opinion, and in my head, I was already becoming a cautionary tale: “Remember the law clerk who did that?” My co-clerks commiserated with me and agreed that the only thing to do was wait for the Justice to return to chambers and tell him what had happened. It was a long couple of hours. I walked around the block a few times and then, when the Court broke for lunch, knocked on the boss’s door. I half expected to be fired.  

When I told him what I had done, he shook his head and chuckled. He said to let the clerk’s office know so they could issue a corrected opinion. “Listen,” he said, and he told me the perhaps apocryphal story of the young New York lawyer who had cost his client millions of dollars by accidentally including too many zeros in a bond debenture. “That’s the sort of mistake you worry about, not this,” he consoled. “Just take care of it.” Greatly relieved, I followed his advice, and the clerk’s office quietly issued a revised opinion. As far as I know, no one on the outside has ever been the wiser—until now, that is.  

I will cherish the memory of my time working for him. May he rest in peace.

You can read the full post here.

Conference in Messina on Minority Religious Groups

The summer conference season is underway! I’m looking forward to participating later this month (online) in a very interesting conference organized by Professor Adelaide Madera at the University deli Studio di Messina, “Religious Freedom of Minority Groups in Times of Ongoing Crisis.” I’ll be speaking on one of the largest “religious” groups in the US, the Nones. Details about the conference are at the announcement below:

Mattone Center Year-End Review

We’ve just posted the annual Mattone Center Year-End Review for 2024-2025. Among the highlights: a new YouTube channel and animated video series on landmark cases in religious freedom; more Legal Spirits podcasts, the first ever Center Directors Summit, and many more. You can read all about them at the link. Thanks to all our supporters!

New Paper at SSRN: “Status, Conduct, Belief, and Message”

And, continuing the wedding vendor theme from the last post, my draft paper on the wedding vendor cases, “Status, Conduct, Belief, and Message,” is now available for downloading on the SSRN site. The paper will appear in a forthcoming symposium edition of the Chicago-Kent Law Review. Comments welcome! Here’s the abstract:

This essay explores the constitutional and cultural tensions underlying the “wedding vendor cases,” in which small business owners decline from religious conviction to provide services for same-sex weddings. Litigants often invoke conceptual distinctions among status, conduct, belief, and message, but these distinctions are too indeterminate to resolve the cases in a principled way. The ultimate question is whether LGBT rights should override religious and expressive freedoms in the marketplace. In two recent wedding vendor cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court has avoided addressing this fundamental question directly. Instead, the Court has issued narrow rulings based on specific facts and party stipulations, thereby limiting the broader implications of its decisions. While this strategy sacrifices doctrinal clarity and leaves lower courts grappling with uncertainty, it also helps avoid exacerbating cultural polarization on an intensely divisive issue. In the current political climate, incremental case-by-case adjudication—a sort of “passive virtues” approach—may represent a prudent judicial strategy, even if it leaves both sides of the cultural divide dissatisfied.

Movsesian Interviewed on the Wedding Vendor Cases

I was delighted to join my friend and former colleague, Marc DeGirolami, and my friend and Marc’s current colleague, Kevin Walsh, as a guest last week on their excellent podcast, Sub Deo. We discussed the Supreme Court’s recent wedding vendor cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative. I have a draft on the subject on the SSRN site and thought I’d heard everything about the cases, but Marc and Kevin came up with new and profound questions for me to think about. It was great fun and I thank Marc and Kevin for the opportunity to kick around some ideas. The link is here:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-23-in-which-we-reflect-on-the-legal-categories/id1736221891?i=1000704913852

Video of Center Panel on the Catholic Charter School Case

A video of our panel this month in the Catholic Charter School case, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, set for argument at SCOTUS in a couple of weeks, is now available on the Mattone Center’s YouTube channel. Thanks again for Professors Michael Helfand (Pepperdine) and Michael Moreland (Villanova) for participating. Link is below:

Video on Chicago-Kent Panel

The panel on religious exemptions from the Chicago-Kent Law Review symposium in which I participated with Stephanie Barclay and Laura Underkuffler is now available on YouTube. Thanks again to the organizers for inviting me. The symposium will appear in print later this year. Meanwhile, keep an eye out for the appearance of the Justice Souter bobblehead at 29:05!