United States🏛️ PoliticsConservativeOverlooked by progressives3 days ago
Seen, Heard & Whispered: A Scalia letter, birthright citizenship's long game and illegal dating woes
This article discusses a newly uncovered private letter from late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in which he defends his 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith. In this case, Scalia led the majority in rejecting a challenge to a state law that denied unemployment benefits to two Native American drug counselors who used peyote as part of their religious practices. Scalia argued that states can enforce neutral, generally applicable laws even if they conflict with individual religious practices. The letter, found among Scalia's papers at Harvard Law School, reflects his strong stance against allowing religious exemptions from such laws, calling such a ruling 'courting anarchy.' The letter was discovered by James Rosen, a journalist working on a biography of Scalia, and highlights Scalia's confidence in his decision. However, the article notes that later in life, Scalia reportedly began to question the long-term implications of the Smith decision.
A newly uncovered letter from late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia provides fresh insight into his defense of a controversial 1990 ruling on religious freedom. The document, obtained through a court filing and revealed by the publication Seen, Heard & Whispered, shows that Scalia personally addressed concerns raised by Judge Thomas J. Aquilino Jr., a federal judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade, regarding the case Employment Division v. Smith. In this case, Scalia authored the majority opinion, which rejected claims by two Native American drug counselors who were denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using peyote during a religious ceremony. Scalia’s letter, dated May 25, 1990—just weeks after the decision was handed down, was written in response to Aquilino’s expressed disagreement with the ruling. In it, Scalia emphasized that the government is not obligated to accommodate religious practices that conflict with generally applicable laws. He warned against the notion that such accommodations would prevent chaos, stating that a contrary ruling would “court anarchy.” The letter was found among Scalia’s personal papers at Harvard Law School and is signed on official Supreme Court stationery. The Smith decision sparked immediate backlash from religious liberty advocates and conservative groups who had supported Scalia’s confirmation to the bench. Critics argued that the ruling placed undue restrictions on religious expression, particularly for minority faiths. Scalia, however, maintained that the Constitution does not require states to exempt individuals from laws that apply equally to everyone, even if those laws incidentally affect religious practices. His letter to Aquilino reflects his belief in clear, consistent legal standards rather than case-by-case exceptions. James Rosen, chief Washington correspondent for Newsmax and author of a multi-volume biography of Scalia, discovered the letter while working on the third volume of his series. Rosen noted that Scalia rarely defended his decisions in personal correspondence, making this letter a rare glimpse into his internal confidence in the Smith ruling. In his book Scalia: Supreme Court Years, 1986 to 2001, published earlier this year, Rosen documents that Scalia later expressed uncertainty about the long-term implications of the decision. According to a former Harvard Law classmate cited by Rosen, Scalia reportedly considered revisiting the Smith ruling in 2015, shortly before his death in 2016. The Smith case continues to resonate in contemporary legal debates, particularly around issues of religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Some scholars argue that the ruling set a precedent that limits the ability of individuals to claim exemptions from laws based on religious grounds. Others contend that it reinforced the principle of equal treatment under the law, ensuring that no one is above the rules simply because of their beliefs. Meanwhile, the broader political landscape has drawn comparisons between the Smith decision and the recent Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship, Trump v. Barbara. Just as conservatives spent decades pushing to overturn Roe v. Wade, many now hope to challenge the Barbara decision, which affirmed that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status. Advocates for restricting birthright citizenship, such as Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute, have called for future Supreme Court nominees to explicitly oppose expansive interpretations of the Citizenship Clause. The discovery of Scalia’s letter adds another layer to ongoing discussions about the legacy of his jurisprudence. While he remained steadfast in his defense of Smith at the time, later reflections suggest he may have grappled with its consequences. As the debate over religious liberty and constitutional interpretation continues, Scalia’s writings remain central to understanding both the evolution of legal thought and the enduring influence of his tenure on the Supreme Court.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.
An unsealed letter from late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reveals his strong defense of the 1990 'Employment Division v. Smith' ruling, which upheld a state law banning drug use even when it conflicted with religious practices. The letter, discovered in Scalia's papers at Harvard Law School, was written in response to criticisms from religious-liberty advocates and conservatives. In the letter, Scalia argues that individuals cannot use religious beliefs to avoid complying with generally applicable laws, stating that such a stance would lead to 'anarchy.' The ruling, which rejected claims that the law violated the First Amendment, faced significant backlash. James Rosen, author of a Scalia biography, notes this letter highlights Scalia's confidence in his decision, though he later expressed doubts about its impact in 2015.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Scalia's defense of the 'Smith' decision using language that emphasizes legal clarity and resistance to perceived judicial overreach, aligning with conservative values. While the subject is a historical legal ruling, the framing suggests a right-leaning perspective by highlighting
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 75): Similar to the first article, this piece accurately reports on Scalia's letter and the Employment Division v. Smith case. It also cuts off mid-sentence, affecting completeness. The objectivity score is slightly lower due to the repeated mention of criticism from specific groups, which may imply a bi
The Washington TimesParty-alignedConservativeFactual 85Objective 755 days ago
This article discusses a newly uncovered private letter from late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in which he defends his 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith. In this case, Scalia led the majority in rejecting a challenge to a state law that denied unemployment benefits to two Native American drug counselors who used peyote as part of their religious practices. Scalia argued that states can enforce neutral, generally applicable laws even if they conflict with individual religious practices. The letter, found among Scalia's papers at Harvard Law School, reflects his strong stance against allowing religious exemptions from such laws, calling such a ruling 'courting anarchy.' The letter was discovered by James Rosen, a journalist working on a biography of Scalia, and highlights Scalia's confidence in his decision. However, the article notes that later in life, Scalia reportedly began to question the long-term implications of the Smith decision.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Justice Scalia's legal reasoning in favor of maintaining strict adherence to state laws over religious exemptions, aligning with conservative values that emphasize legal consistency and limited judicial discretion. The emphasis on Scalia's firm stance against religious exemptions,
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 75): Factual accuracy is strong, covering the details of Scalia's letter and the Employment Division v. Smith case. However, the article ends abruptly mid-sentence, which may affect completeness. Objectivity is somewhat compromised by the emphasis on criticism from religious-liberty advocates and conserv
The Daily WireIndependentConservativeFactual 60Objective 609 days ago
The Supreme Court's recent term delivered significant rulings that favor originalist interpretations of the Constitution. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled that presidents can fire agency heads who exercise executive power, increasing presidential control over federal agencies. A related case, Trump v. Cook, allowed for a 5-4 compromise regarding the Federal Reserve's independence. The Court also upheld protections for women's sports, stating that Title IX does not require states to allow biological males to compete on girls' teams. Additionally, the Court struck down restrictive gun laws in Hawaii and ruled against stripping gun rights based on marijuana use. The First Amendment saw victories as well, including the overturning of Colorado's conversion therapy ban.
Bias read (Conservative): The article emphasizes rulings that expand presidential authority, uphold traditional views on gender in sports, and support gun rights, which align with conservative and originalist legal philosophies. It frames these decisions as positive developments for originalism, suggesting a favorable view.
Why these scores (Factual 60 · Objective 60): This article diverges significantly from the others, discussing a different event entirely (Supreme Court term changes). While some details about Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook are mentioned, the content does not align with the main topic of Scalia's letter. The objectivity score is lower due
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
United States
