The Mattone Center has posted a new video on our YouTube channel about Everson v. Board of Education (1947), one of the Supreme Court’s landmark Establishment Clause cases. In Everson, the Court upheld a New Jersey program that reimbursed parents for transportation costs to parochial as well as public schools. Justice Black’s majority opinion famously explores several arguments about the meaning of the Establishment Clause and has influenced the Court’s jurisprudence ever since.
In our new video, we explain the facts of the case, the Court’s reasoning, and why Everson remains such a touchstone in the law of church and state.
We hope you’ll take a look—and please consider subscribing to the Center’s channel for more explainers on law-and-religion cases and issues.
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:
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!
Happy to announce that the latest episode in our animated video series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom,” is now available on our YouTube channel. This episode covers Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), in which a Jehovah’s Witness was convicted of inciting a breach of the peace after playing an anti-Catholic phonograph record in a Catholic neighborhood. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Cantwell’s conviction was unconstitutional, establishing for the first time that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause applies to state laws through the Fourteenth Amendment. The case demonstrates how the Constitution protects offensive religious speech absent physical threats or an imminent danger to public order. This precedent remains crucial in today’s debates about religious “hate speech” and the balance between free expression and public safety. Take a look!
Happy to announce the release of a new video in our YouTube series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom.” The new video examines the landmark 1878 case, Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court’s first decision on the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.
Through the story of George Reynolds, a devout Mormon charged with bigamy, the Court established that although the Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief absolutely, it allows the state to regulate religious conduct–at least if the state has a good reason for doing so. Learn how Chief Justice Waite’s opinion introduced Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor to the Court’s caselaw and why the Court rejected religious belief as a defense to criminal charges, setting a precedent that still influences religious freedom cases today:
On January 23, 2025, the Mattone Center for Law and Religion hosted the inaugural Center Directors Summit, a gathering of directors of law and religion centers and clinics across the United States. Participants at the event, which took place at the New York Athletic Club, included the directors of centers and clinics at Brigham Young, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Pepperdine, St. John’s, Stanford, and Villanova Universities, The Catholic University of America, and the University of Texas.
The day began with three private roundtables addressing mission, scholarship, curricula, and programs. Participants spoke about the role of law and religion centers and clinics and the benefits they can provide for law professors, students, and the public more generally.
The summit continued with two panel presentations for Mattone Center student fellows, board members, alumni, and friends, moderated by Judge Richard Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, at which participants shared key insights from the earlier roundtables. You can find a video of the panels here:
It was great to get together with colleagues and friends to talk about our successes, challenges, and plans for the future. I came away from the summit with ideas for our program here at St. John’s, and I’m sure that’s true of the other participants as well. So many law schools in the US have law and religion centers and clinics, yet no one has thought before to bring the directors together to share notes and see how we can continue to provide a benefit legal education in the US. This summit was a great first step, and I hope it will continue on a rotating basis.
I’m delighted to announce that this month the Mattone Center has launched a new YouTube channel. The platform features diverse content, including episodes of the Legal Spirits podcast, a new video series, Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom, panels and interviews , and event highlights. The channel aims to promote engaging discussions and provide valuable insights into the intricate relationship of law and religion.
One standout feature of the new channel is the animated series, Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom, which examines conflicts between law and religious conscience in American jurisprudence. Each video provides historical context, explains key legal arguments and court decisions, and analyzes the broader societal impact of these pivotal cases.
The first video in the series, “People v. Philips: An Early Case About Free Exercise,” explores an early precedent from New York on the priest-penitent privilege. It has resonated strongly with viewers, amassing over 30,000 views and counting in the short time since its launch. Here it is:
The response to this first video shows that we are serving a real need. People want to understand how courts balance legal principles and religious faith. As an academic institution, the Mattone Center is uniquely positioned to provide that understanding, and YouTube, which reaches millions of people around the world, offers a new opportunity for us to do so. Scholars shouldn’t confine themselves to academic circles; we should engage with the wider world. That’s exactly what we aim to achieve with this channel.
Please consider subscribing to the channel, so you can receive updates as new material becomes available. Thanks!
Following on yesterday’s Legal Spirits podcast, I was interviewed today by GB News on UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s appalling statement about Azerbaijan’s “liberation” last year of Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact, Baku ethnically cleansed Karabakh of its 120,000 Christian Armenian inhabitants a year ago, in violation of an order from the International Court of Justice, which ruled that Baku was violating the international anti-racism treaty, and in defiance of a statement from the US that ethnic cleansing would not be tolerated. Well, listeners to the podcast will know my skepticism about international human rights law, which seems to matter only when great powers think it’s in their interest. But statements like Lammy’s are outrageous and incomprehensible.
You can listen to the GB News report at the link below:
‘It’s been described as shockingly callous and ignorant…’
GB News’ National Reporter @CDP1882 on controversial comments from Foreign Secretary David Lammy surrounding Armenia’s conflict with Azerbaijan.
For those who are interested, here’s a writeup of this month’s panel discussion on SCOTUS’s recent school-prayer case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, with panelists Stephanie Barclay (Notre Dame), Marc DiGirolami (CUA), and Mattone Center Director Mark Movsesian. Among the topics discussed: the end of the endorsement test, the meaning of the Court’s new history-and-tradition test, and the lingering problem of coercion. A video of the panel is below. Listen in!
Thanks to the Federalist Society for inviting me to participate on a panel yesterday at the annual faculty conference, underway in Washington. I joined Amy Sepinwall (Wharton) and Dale Carpenter (Southern Methodist) for a discussion of 303 Creative, the wedding vendor case. Among the issues we addressed were the application of strict scrutiny to speech compulsions; the distinction between speech and conduct; and discriminating based on message vs. discrimination based on status. The video is linked below:
