MAJOR Day at the Supreme Court: A Win for the Constitution

Today is a major day at the Supreme Court, with five impactful opinions published just this morning. The ACLJ is keeping a close eye on how these decisions affect our cases and our ACLJ Members and Champions. Today, more than ever, decisions at the Supreme Court have major implications for our rights in our schools, workplaces, and the direction of this country. Here is a roundup of today’s legal news:

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisc. Labor and Industry Review Comm’n

Most importantly, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisc. Labor and Industry Review Comm’n was a unanimous decision in favor of religious liberty. The ACLJ filed a powerful amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to protect religious liberty. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had astonishingly – and wrongly – ruled that a Christian charity organization wasn’t religious enough to qualify for state tax-exempt status because, in that court’s flawed view, serving the poor wasn’t a “typical” religious activity. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly reversed.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, noted that, at a minimum, the First Amendment requires “government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny.” She then went on to note that the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of tax law “imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.” Indeed, the Court stated, Wisconsin’s singling out of the Catholic Charities was “textbook denominational discrimination” based on “how they worship, hold services, or initiate members . . . .”

It is tremendous that the Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling that respects that religious groups might look, act, or worship differently, but none of that allows a state to discriminate against particular groups.

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services represents a significant victory for fair treatment under the law and religious liberty principles. The Court rightfully struck down the discriminatory “background circumstances” rule that created a two-tiered justice system in employment discrimination claims, requiring so-called “majority groups” like Christians to meet higher evidentiary burdens simply because of their majority status.

The lower court’s reasoning was based on the ludicrous idea that employers who discriminate against supposed “majority” groups, like Christians, were “unusual,” and victims of unfair business practices needed to jump extra hurdles to show employment discrimination. We know how untrue this assertion is, and the Supreme Court rightly showed skepticism. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that this rule “cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or our longstanding precedents.” Justice Thomas, in a concurrence, called the rule “atextual” and said the rule generated “complexity, confusion, and erroneous results.”

This decision affirms that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all individuals regardless of whether they belong to majority or minority groups – a principle that aligns with biblical teachings about equal justice and constitutional guarantees that all Americans should be treated fairly under the law. By rejecting judicial activism that imposed extra burdens on heterosexual and Christian employees, the Court has restored the original intent of civil rights law and protected the First Amendment principle that the government cannot discriminate based on religious or moral beliefs about traditional values.

Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp

This U.S. Supreme Court ruling represents a significant victory for enforcing legal accountability against foreign state actors who attempt to evade American justice through jurisdictional technicalities. The Court’s decision in Devas strengthens the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act by clarifying that federal courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign government entities when immunity exceptions apply and proper service is made – without requiring additional “minimum contacts” analysis that foreign defendants often exploit to escape liability.

This streamlined approach will make it substantially easier for American courts to hold foreign state-sponsored entities accountable for their actions, including potentially providing new legal avenues for pursuing justice against Hamas and other Palestinian organizations with terror connections that operate through foreign governmental structures. The ruling eliminates procedural loopholes that hostile foreign actors have used to shield themselves from American legal processes, ensuring that when Congress has specifically carved out exceptions to sovereign immunity – as it has done for terrorism-related cases – courts can move forward with adjudication rather than getting bogged down in jurisdictional technicalities that ultimately serve to protect bad actors from facing the consequences of their conduct.

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman

Today’s unanimous ruling in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman is a powerful victory for rule-of-law conservatives who believe our courts must not be turned into political weapons – especially in cases involving terrorism. In this case, families of U.S. citizens murdered by Hamas tried to sue a Lebanese bank for allegedly aiding the terror group by providing financial services. But instead of proving their case under existing law, they sought to reopen a final judgment to add new claims and facts after the fact. The Court firmly rejected this tactic, holding that a final judgment can’t be undone unless there are truly “extraordinary circumstances.” This matters.

As the ACLJ has long warned, when courts abandon firm legal boundaries, it opens the door to chaos, forum shopping, and political manipulation. These families are due compensation for the horrors that Hamas has wrought, but it has to come through the proper channels. The rule of law means even unpopular or morally outrageous cases must follow proper procedure. The ACLJ is committed to both justice and constitutional order, and the Court is correct that American justice must be principled, not reactive.

Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Another major case was the holding in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which delivered a resounding victory for American sovereignty and Second Amendment freedoms and decisively rejected Mexico’s brazen attempt to weaponize U.S. courts against the American firearms industry. This landmark ruling upholds the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by finding that Mexico failed to plausibly allege that gun manufacturers aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thereby protecting law-abiding American businesses from frivolous foreign litigation designed to bankrupt the domestic gun industry through the back door.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that foreign governments cannot circumvent Congress’ deliberate choice to shield firearms manufacturers from liability for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties, preserving both the integrity of American judicial sovereignty and the constitutional rights of American gun owners against international overreach. This victory demonstrates that even in an era of activist litigation, the Supreme Court will stand firm against attempts to use the courts to accomplish through foreign interference what gun control advocates have been unable to achieve through the democratic process.

What This Means for You

More and more, major questions about our rights and the future of our country are being hashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court. The rights of Americans like us don’t protect themselves; they need constant vigilance. Today’s flurry of major Supreme Court opinions shows how important this work is and how vital ACLJ Members and Champions are. Because of them, our legal team can fight and win in these cases where the stakes are so high.