On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard the case of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, concerning the refusal of Catholic Social Services to place children with same-sex parents. The court’s ruling on the matter could have far-reaching implications, possibly expanding religious freedom in ways particularly beneficial to religious minorities. Asma Uddin and Howie Slugh explain:

[I]n 1990, . . . the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith said that the First Amendment, which protects the “free exercise” of religion, prohibits only laws that target religion. So long as a law applies to everyone, it is permitted. While this may sound unobjectionable, the decision actually allows governments effectively to prohibit core religious practices—like the ability of a Jewish police officer to wear a ceremonial head covering—without justification.

While Smith restricted the religious freedom of all Americans, religious minorities suffered the most harm. . . . A legislature is more likely to pass a generally applicable law that accidentally burdens a little-known Jewish practice than a well-known Christian practice. Smith thus put the fate of uncommon and unknown religious beliefs at the mercy of majorities.

Courts have cited Smith to deny a Jewish parent the right to reject an autopsy on her child, a Jewish police officer the ability to wear a skullcap, and a Muslim corrections-officer trainee the ability to maintain a religiously required beard. If the court were to reconsider Smith, these plaintiffs wouldn’t necessarily win, but at least they would have their day in court.

Americans are rightly proud that in our country we can find countless examples of religious expression and practice—from Christians praying in public and Jews eating kosher meals to Sikhs carrying ceremonial daggers, or kirpans, at work, and a Muslim congresswoman wearing her hijab on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”