Judge to Rule on Case of Christians Arrested for Reading the Bible Aloud in Public

In February 2011, three Christian men from Hemet, California, went to the local DMV. They stood about 50 feet from the door to the business and, while people waited in line for the DMV to open, one of the men read aloud from the Bible.

Within about 30-40 minutes, a CHP officer arrived, grabbed the Bible from the hands of the Christian reading, and arrested him, saying, “You can preach on your OWN property.”  The other two men asked the officer, “What law was he breaking?”…but the policeman could not give an answer.  While they were still trying to figure out why an arrest had occurred, another CHP officer arrived and arrested the other two as well.

Later, the CHP decided that the charge against these men was “impeding an open business”.  However, the DMV was not open at the time they were there AND they were standing far away from the entrance.

Advocates intervened in this case to protect the freedom of speech that these men are guaranteed by our Constitution, as well as to recognize the false arrests that they endured.  We stood in defense of our clients' freedom of speech and filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court against the CHP for an unlawful arrest.  The CHP then filed a Motion to Dismiss in response to our lawsuit, after which we filed a brief in opposition to their motion.  We anticipate that the judge will decide on the CHP’s motion very soon.

The three men are now being criminally prosecuted for not having a permit.  We believe the charges are unfounded because no permit is clearly required by state law.  Interestingly, the criminal charges were not filed until after we initiated the federal lawsuit.

We are praying for favor from the court and that the judge will see the validity of the arguments we presented in our written brief.

We appreciate your support and encouragement in this important case.  Not everyone will agree with the approach or the type of outreach these men performed, but we should all recognize their Constitutional right to read from the Bible out loud in public.  If this is not protected speech, then the Free Speech Clause would be of little value.

If you would like to see the whole story as it actually played out, you can watch a video of the arrest here.

Also, join us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on our progress in this case and others.

Did you know Congress printed the first U.S. Bible?

The theme of our annual Justice gala, on October 1, 2011, is“Defending Our Christian Heritage.”  In a time when the culture war is raging in our Nation, we can’t think of a more relevant topic to share with you.

We are so pleased to have David Barton, president of WallBuilders – an organization dedicated to preserving America’s forgotten history and heroes – as our featured speaker at Justice.  His knowledge of America’s Christian foundation shines a bright light on our history, such as the fact that the first Bible printed in English in the U.S. was printed by our government.

There is so much religious history to our nation’s founding that has been lost or revised along the way.  Other amazing facts that David Barton shares…

• That first U.S. Bible printed by Congress was for use in…our public schools
• The 4 paintings lining the walls of the Capitol show two prayer meetings, a Bible study, and a baptism
• The U.S. Capitol was America’s first megachurch, housing church services every Sunday

You will not want to miss this year’s Justice dinner and auction on October 1, with David Barton as our guest speaker.  This video gives just a sneak peek of what he will be sharing with us about the importance of “Defending Our Christian Heritage”:

Click here to view video

Another Student Vindicated

Whether you are a parent, a student, or have a loved one currently in middle or high school, we wanted to inform you of a recent case we fought involving the rights of a high school student.

In April, the Assistant Principals of Casa Grande High School approached student Maurace Zetino and told him that he could not wear his rosary outside of his clothing while on school grounds.  They said that the rosary could be construed as a gang symbol, and thus it was not permitted to be worn in full view – even though Maurace wears it as an expression of his Catholic religious beliefs.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the law supports the constitutional right of students to express their religious beliefs.Students do not give up their freedoms and liberties when they step foot on campus.

Along with our friend Jay Sekulow at the American Center for Law & Justice, we sent a joint demand letter to the Principals at Casa Grande, informing them of Maurace’s constitutional rights to convey his religiosity. In 1969, in the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist.,students wore black armbands to protest the activities occurring in Vietnam. The students were sent home and told not to return until they removed the armbands, but the Supreme Court found in favor of the students and stated that students could express their beliefs – even if not shared by the school – as long as they did not cause “material and substantial” interference with the workings of the school or the rights of others.

Maurace is not a gang member. He does not wear the rosary to offend anyone or cause any kind of raucous. He simply wears it as an expression of his faith.

After our demand letter was sent to the school, attorneys on behalf of the administrators quickly responded and said that Maurace could continue to wear the rosary, and that all disciplinary actions related to this situation would be removed from Maurace’s record. We thank the school and admire their prompt response and resolution of this matter.

If you have a student in your life whose liberties are in some way infringed upon at school, I urge you to take action and stand up for religious freedom. Being a minor student does not eliminate a person of his or her constitutionally supported liberties. If Advocates can help in any way, we are ready and available to do so!

"So Help Me God" Stays Put

Last month, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case brought by a group of atheists (led by the infamous atheist Michael Newdow who also challenged “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance), challenging the use of the phrase “So help me God” used at the end of the President’s inaugural speech.

This suit originally came about before President Obama’s inaugural ceremony in January, 2009, asking a federal judge to block the use of the phrase at the inauguration.  In addition, this group asked that clergy be barred from conducting an invocation and benediction at the ceremony.

A federal judge claimed that the atheists did not have proper standing to bring this case, and so they were denied.

Later, the atheist group amended the case, seeking to bar all religious reference from the 2013 and 2017 inaugurations. They claimed that these statements amounted to governmental support of religion, which they believed would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.  The case was filed against the chief justice, prospective prayer leaders, and inaugural committee members.

The appeals court dismissed the case, stating that the President or President-elect decides the content of the inaugural ceremony.  Thus, none of the individuals named in the case had the power to change the content, and since the atheist group did not name the President or President-elect, the case was dismissed.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal underscored an important point:

“A court would not have the authority to enter an injunction directly against the president in the exercise of his executive functions or against the president-elect (a private citizen) in the exercise of his personal religious beliefs.”

We applaud the decision of the Court!

A Supreme Court Win for Liberty

With our big government seemingly growing bigger all the time, we celebrate every victory that affords individuals personal freedom and liberties.

Just this week, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the individual and religious liberty.  In Arizona, state taxpayers had challenged a state program that allows tax credits to those who contribute to school tuition organizations (STOs), which provide scholarships to private and religious schools.  In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court found that these taxpayers had no standing, and that, essentially, individuals have the right to contribute their money to the organizations they want to help.  In the decision, Justice Kennedy explained:

“[C]ontributions result from the decisions of private taxpayers regarding their own funds.  Private citizens create private STOs; STOs choose beneficiary schools; and taxpayers then contribute to STOs.  While the State, at the outset, affords the opportunity to create and contribute to an STO, the tax credit system is implemented by private action and with no state intervention…”

We celebrate this victory of freedom and personal liberty, and we are proud to have written the brief on the issue where the case was won!

Planned Parenthood Shows Its True Colors in Undercover Sting

In a shocking undercover video released by Live Action this week, a Planned Parenthood clinic manager helps a supposed pimp and his prostitute (working undercover) with complications arising from their child sex trafficking business.

This clinic manager not only seems to be at ease with what is clearly being described as an illegal sex trafficking group involving underage children, but she also offers advice about how to cover up the young girls’ ages; which abortion clinic to go to so they will not be scrutinized; and how to receive a discount on contraception by claiming that the young girls are “students” – all to make everything look as legit as possible.  In one final sickening act, the manager advises on how young girls can still make money right after having an abortion (“Waist up, or just be that extra action walking by” to advertise sex to potential clients.)

This is despicable on its own, but the larger wrong is that Planned Parenthood receives over $300 million of our taxpayer money on a yearly basis!

Please spread this video to all of your friends and family so more people will be educated about the harm that this government-funded organization is doing.

View the video here: http://liveaction.org/traffick

Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional

Last Monday, January 31, Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Florida ruled that President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – commonly referred to as Obamacare – is unconstitutional. According to the Judge, the individual mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance is invalid, and he stated, “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

This case involved state attorneys from a total of 26 states – over half of our country!  This decision proves that we the people still have a say in what is right for our country and that Congress cannot violate the principles of our Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers established the fact that big government is not better, and we citizens must have the freedom to direct our personal lives and matters.

This case will likely be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will stay tuned to see if this high court will uphold the Constitution and limit the overextending reach of Congressional power.

Mt. Soledad Cross Declared Unconstitutional by Ninth Circuit

In yet another shocking decision from the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals, the court ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross, a San Diego monument to our Nation’s veterans and a poignant war memorial, is unconstitutional.  Advocates has submitted substantial briefing in support of the constitutionality of the war memorial, and will continue to do so should this decision be reconsidered by the United States Supreme Court!  With deep gratitude to those who have sacrificed the ultimate prince with their lives to defend our freedom, we are hopeful that the monument will continue to stand as a beacon of light and an expression of gratitude.  The Court’s preposterous interpretation of the First Amendment in this decision should not be permitted to stand.