In 1972, at the encouragement of a group of religious-liberty activists, Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia—a member of a small Baptist denomination that observes the Sabbath from Friday night to Saturday night—pushed for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would require businesses to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious observance. Although the amendment was made law, in 1977 the Supreme Court declined to apply it to the case of Larry Hardison, fired by TWA for refusing a Sabbath shift. Nathan Lewin, who helped to draft the language of Randolph’s amendment, hopes the court will now hear the similar case of Darrell Patterson, and rule differently:

Justice Byron White wrote the court’s [1977] ruling, and he was obviously concerned that the far-reaching interpretation that the court was then giving to the First Amendment’s prohibition against the “establishment of religion” conflicted with an interpretation of the law that could impose costs on private employers to satisfy the religious observances of their employees. White’s majority opinion declared: “To require TWA to bear more than a de-minimis cost in order to give Hardison Saturdays off is an undue hardship.”

First Amendment law was very different in 1977 from what it is today. [Then] Supreme Court majorities seemed to condemn even the most remote governmental assistance to religion. But that attitude was short-lived. . . . The court [in 2000] began an era in which the exercise of religion wins greater judicial respect. . . .

The de-minimis language has, over more than four decades, ruined the careers and employment prospects of thousands of religiously observant employees. There are many reported judicial decisions that fail to apply [the law] as Senator Randolph contemplated it. They permit employers to ban religious practices they dislike and to harm Sabbath observers and employees who have other unusual prescribed religious practices.

But close scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s recent actions raises hopes that these injustices will soon be corrected. . . . In a recent opinion explaining why they rejected a publicized religious-liberty case, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh said they are ready to “revisit” the Hardison ruling. . . . Resounding vindication of Darrell Patterson would correct a decades-long injustice, granting religious Americans the protection they so richly deserve.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.