Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Impact on Religious Liberty and Parental Rights

4 weeks ago 0

Attorney General Todd Blanche, recently confirmed to his position, has quickly made significant strides in the areas of religious liberty and parental rights. On July 23, Blanche released updated guidelines directing federal agencies on religious liberty protections. This document reviews recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Carson v. Makin, Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist., and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, emphasizing the need for agencies to adhere to the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A standout instruction in the document emphasizes the constitutional protection of parents’ rights to guide their children’s upbringing. This statement is particularly notable given the Civil Rights Division’s previous focus. In recent years, its most prominent initiative was aimed at obstructing people’s ability to become parents, not supporting parental authority.

The FACE Act, passed in 1994, was used by the Biden administration as a tool to address political opposition.

The administration’s Civil Rights Division collaborated with the abortion industry, gathering intelligence from these groups to target individuals indiscriminately. This approach was implemented previously in the late 1990s when the FACE Act was enforced, as witnessed by a former trial lawyer from the Civil Rights Division.

The case of Mark Houck, a father from Pennsylvania, exemplifies the aggressive enforcement. His home was raided due to a sidewalk altercation over his son, leading to an acquittal by a jury in under an hour. The government ultimately settled with him for a substantial amount. The Department’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias confirmed that FACE Act cases were often based on information from organizations eager to silence their critics.

While none of this condones obstruction of justice or violence, the existence of the FACE Act was predicated on the federal interest in protecting abortion access. However, the Dobbs decision clarified that abortion is not a constitutional right, weakening the argument for federal jurisdiction over typical sidewalk activities. This decision aligned clinic security with that of any building, enforceable by local police.

The FACE Act’s other provision, which criminalizes damage to places of worship and pregnancy centers, was largely overlooked by the Justice Department, particularly after churches and centers were vandalized post-Dobbs leak. Members of Congress noted the lack of prosecutions in these cases compared to the treatment of sidewalk counselors.

Blanche’s memorandum continues the departmental focus on parental rights, highlighted by the Solicitor General’s office supporting a petition related to Catholic preschools in Colorado. Such involvement is rare at the petition stage, showing the department’s commitment.

The department also played a vital role in Mahmoud v. Taylor, securing parental rights to exempt children from certain classroom content. It is hoped that the resources once used to limit sidewalk counseling will be realigned with Blanche’s guidance. Recognizing the Constitution’s protection of parental authority and the need for equitable enforcement of religious freedom is a step towards valuing parental rights as before.

Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project and former civil rights attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, contributed to this analysis.