12/17/2021
We are still fighting and based upon the recent rulings of Justice Gorsuch we may have a very good shot! Please send up prayers if you are so inclined. This was filed with the US Supreme Court today - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S1gi1iynkKg4sXHfz9xASzFw9aNhgDea/view?usp=sharing
This is what Justice Gorsuch wrote on Monday:
By now, though, we should know the costs that come when this Court stands silent as majorities invade the constitutional rights of the unpopular and unorthodox. More than 80 years ago, in the shadow of a looming second world war, local governments across the country rushed to encourage displays of national unity. A public school in Minersville, Pennsylvania, did its part by requiring all students to stand daily and salute the American flag. But Lillian and William Gobitas would not oblige. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, they believed they could not pledge fealty to anything or anyone except God. When the children refused to salute, the school expelled them. See S. Peters, Judging Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution 19–38 (2000) (Peters).
When the Gobitas family sought this Court’s intervention, it demurred. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not “compel exemption from doing what society thinks necessary for the promotion of some great common end.” Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 593 (1940). In doing so, the Court not only erred in the small matter of the children’s last name; it erred in the most fundamental of things. It took the view that the collective was more important than the individual—and that the demands of an impending emergency were more pressing than holding fast to the timeless promises of our Constitution. Id., at 596. In the weeks that followed the decision, Witnesses across the country suffered hundreds of physical attacks. Peters 72–95.
Eventually, the Court changed course and overruled Gobitis. In West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, the Court finally acknowledged what had been true all along-that our Constitution is intended to prevail over the passions of the moment, and that the unalienable rights recorded in its text are not matters to “be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” 319 U. S., at 638. Instead, it is this Court’s duty to “apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization.” Id., at 641. The First Amendment protects against “coercive elimination of dissent” and “was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.” Ibid.
Today, our Nation faces not a world war but a pandemic. Like wars, though, pandemic s often produce demanding new social rules aimed at protecting collective interests—and with those rules can come fear and anger at individuals unable to conform for religious reasons. If cases like Gobitis bear any good, it is in their cautionary tale. They remind us that, in the end, it is always the failure to defend the Constitution’s promises that leads to this Court’s greatest regrets. They remind us, too, that in America, freedom to differ is not supposed to be “limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” Barnette, 319 U. S., at 642. The test of this Court’s substance lies in its willingness to defend more than the shadow of freedom in the trying times, not just the easy ones.