A Leading Contender for the Supreme Court Once Took a Strong Stance against Religious Liberty

The California supreme court justice Leondra Kruger is widely considered to be a possible successor to Stephen Breyer, who recently announced his imminent retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court. Around a decade ago, Ed Whelan notes, Kruger forcefully argued against the idea of a “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws:

As an assistant to the solicitor general, Kruger argued on behalf of the Obama administration in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The brief that she and other Obama administration lawyers submitted took a surprisingly aggressive stance against the very existence of a general “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws. According to her position, religious organizations are limited to the right to freedom of association that labor unions and social clubs enjoy.

Kruger maintained that position at oral argument, to the amazement of even Justice Kagan. . . . The Obama administration’s position, [Chief Justice Roberts explained], “is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

To be sure, Kruger might contend that she was simply representing the position of her client. But it would be entirely proper for the White House and, if she is nominated, for senators to probe whether she in fact helped form the government’s “amazing,” [in Kagan’s words], position against religious liberty.

Read more at National Review

More about: American law, Elena Kagan, Freedom of Religion, Supreme Court

American Middle East Policy Should Focus Less on Stability and More on Weakening Enemies

Feb. 10 2025

To Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s plan to remove the entire population of Gaza while the Strip is rebuilt is “unworkable,” at least “as a concrete proposal.” But it is welcome insofar as “its sheer iconoclasm might lead to a healthy rethinking of U.S. strategy and perhaps of Arab and Israeli policies as well.” The U.S., writes Abrams, must not only move beyond the failed approach to Gaza, but also must reject other assumptions that have failed time and again. One is the commitment to an illusory stability:

For two decades, what American policymakers have called “stability” has meant the preservation of the situation in which Gaza was entirely under Hamas control, Hizballah dominated Lebanon, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced. A better term for that situation would have been “erosion,” as U.S. influence steadily slipped away and Washington’s allies became less secure. Now, the United States has a chance to stop that process and aim instead for “reinforcement”: bolstering its interests and allies and actively weakening its adversaries. The result would be a region where threats diminish and U.S. alliances grow stronger.

Such an approach must be applied above all to the greatest threat in today’s Middle East, that of a nuclear Iran:

Trump clearly remains open to the possibility (however small) that an aging [Iranian supreme leader Ali] Khamenei, after witnessing the collapse of [his regional proxies], mulling the possibility of brutal economic sanctions, and being fully aware of the restiveness of his own population, would accept an agreement that stops the nuclear-weapons program and halts payments and arms shipments to Iran’s proxies. But Trump should be equally aware of the trap Khamenei might be setting for him: a phony new negotiation meant to ensnare Washington in talks for years, with Tehran’s negotiators leading Trump on with the mirage of a successful deal and a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the road while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program grows in the shadows.

Read more at Foreign Affairs

More about: Iran, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy