In a sudden turn of events, Anthony Bernal has withdrawn his testimony initially planned for the House Oversight Committee.
Bernal's cancellation comes after the White House waived executive privilege, encouraging the committee to think about issuing a subpoena.
Bernal was expected to provide a transcribed interview concerning the former President Joe Biden's use of the autopen. The autopen, a machine used to sign documents, was a tool during Biden's administration, sparking controversy about transparency. The focus of the investigation was on how the autopen was utilized, potentially hinting at a cover-up of Biden's health matters.
The situation took a new dimension when the White House decided to waive executive privilege concerning Bernal's potential testimony. This decision removed any legal shields Bernal might have relied on to refrain from appearing before the committee.
Before his cancellation, Neera Tanden, who previously served as staff secretary, had provided testimony regarding the autopen's use. Her appearance marked a crucial phase in the ongoing investigation led by the House Oversight Committee.
Following the waiver and Tanden’s testimony, Bernal opted out of attending the scheduled transcribed interview. The decision was a significant moment that stirred reactions among committee members.
Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, expressed his views publicly following the developments. He described Bernal's withdrawal as an indication of unwillingness to expose the truth about President Biden's cognitive state and suggested that Bernal never intended to be transparent.
Comer emphasized the importance of uncovering what he described as a cover-up. He argued that the waiver of executive privilege had left Bernal exposed, opening avenues for a compelled appearance.
The Chairman asserted that the Citizenship Oversight Board would pursue Bernal’s testimony, suggesting further investigative steps. In his statement, he voiced a resolution to ensure accountability and transparency.
Given Bernal's decision not to appear, Chairman Comer has indicated plans to issue a subpoena to mandate Bernal's presence. This development could prolong the investigation as the committee seeks full disclosure concerning the autopen utilization during Biden's tenure.
The issuance of a subpoena would be an escalation in the effort to secure Bernal's testimony. It reflects the significant interest the committee has in understanding the perceived implications of autopen use under Biden's leadership.
Comer highlighted that the American populace deserves clarity on the decision-making processes during the former administration. The committee's exploration seeks to address unanswered inquiries about the physical autopen use and its implications on governance.
The committee's actions showcase a commitment to uncover facts related to matters affecting national leadership. As oversight activities continue, the resulting testimonies and evidence are expected to provide insights into administrative functioning and decision dynamics.
The focus remains on transparency and holding public officials accountable for actions undertaken while in office. Observers are keen to see how the committee’s efforts unfold amid anticipated testimonies and potential legal proceedings.
In light of these developments, the saga involves a delicate balance of legal, political, and administrative interests. Bernal's potential appearance under a subpoena could ultimately yield new insights into the presidency's operational transparency.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A man has been convicted of a "religiously aggravated public order offense," and he's been fined more than $300, because a violent radical was so upset with the speech that he attacked him.
"That's right, a man's violent attack on another was cited as evidence of the victim's guilt," explained a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The case developed in London, where Kurdish-Armenian asylum seeker Hamit Coskun was accused of burning a Quran.
"Coskun ignited a new round of debate over blasphemy in the UK after burning a Quran outside London's Turkish consulate and yelling," among other themes, "Islam is a religion of terrorism."
He has said that was a protest against the "Islamist government of Erdogan," the strong-arm leader of Turkey.
As a result of Coskun's statements, London resident Moussa Kadri attacked Coskun.
The result was that Westminster Magistrates' Court found Coskun guilty because he was attacked.
That's despite the evidence showing Kadri attacked Coskun with a knife, knocked him to the ground, and kicked him while he was on the ground.
The judge justified the conviction by claiming the disorderly nature of Coskun's protest "is no better illustrated than by the fact that it led to serious public disorder involving him being assaulted by two different people."
A report by Reuters said the verdict effectively reinstated an abolished blasphemy statute, which fell in 2008.
Judge John McGarva claimed, "Burning a religious book, although offensive, to some is not necessarily disorderly. What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language. There was no need for him to use the 'F word' and direct it towards Islam."
The nation's Conservative Party said, "Britain has no blasphemy laws. Yet this verdict creates one de facto. Parliament never voted for it. The British people do not want it. This decision is wrong."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of Jill Biden's top aides while Joe Biden and his entourage occupied the White House, Anthony Bernall, had agreed to testify to Congress about its investigation into the mental decline of Joe Biden while he was in office.
One of the key questions still unanswered is did Joe Biden actually know what was going out as law over his signature, which was applied to various documents with an autopen process.
While Bernall had agreed to testify, on Wednesday he abruptly refused, so now members of Congress have issued a subpoena that will require his testimony.
Key is that any claim of White House immunity has been waived by the administration of President Donald Trump, which has the authority to make such decisions for the Biden White House.
Bernall was to be the second witness coming out of the Biden administration on the topic of Joe Biden's failings.
The Washington Examiner confirms that the House Oversight Committee has issued that subpoena, explaining he had "refused" to appear and answer questions.
Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the chairman of the committee, said, addressing Bernall, "To advance the Committee's oversight and legislative responsibilities and interests, your testimony is critical."
The letter accompanied the subpoena.
The process to get Bernall's testimony has been littered with problems. His counsel had demanded a weeks-long delay, and that prompted the committee to suggest a subpoena.
"Within ten minutes of the Committee's email, your counsel responded that 'no subpoena is necessary,'" Comer wrote. "Yesterday, on June 26, your counsel informed the Committee that you were no longer willing to appear voluntarily for the transcribed interview. … To avoid any further delays, your appearance before the Committee is now compelled."
The investigation is looking at, among other things, "who was calling the shots" during Biden's final two years in office, and why his signature was increasingly replaced by an autopen to sign certain executive orders.
Comer said, "Now that the White House has waived executive privilege, it's abundantly clear that Anthony Bernal — Jill Biden's so-called 'work husband' — never intended to be transparent about Joe Biden's cognitive decline and the ensuing cover-up. With no privilege left to hide behind, Mr. Bernal is now running scared, desperate to bury the truth."
Former White House aide Neera Tanden, in fact, was the first witness in the investigation. She admitted handling the autopen signature process on documents but claimed she didn't know who ultimately authorized the actions.
"Tanden testified to the House Oversight Committee that she was authorized to direct autopen use from October 2021 to May 2023 while working as Biden's staff secretary and senior adviser," the Washington Examiner reported, citing her opening remarks.
She also told the committee she had limited contact with Biden and that she did not know exactly who provided final approval for use of the autopen, Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said in a statement.
Tanden also turned partisan in her comments, claiming the committee was overlooking Trump administration oversight to focus on Biden's behavior and the behavior of the Democrat's administration.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government is suing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz because his state has set up programs to subsidize, financially, the lives of illegal aliens.
Walz, a far-leftist who was Kamala Harris' VP pick in the 2024 presidential campaign, contributing to her landslide loss, is known for his extremist positions on transgenderism, on abortion, on guns and on illegals.
A report at Courthousenews explains he and his state are now being sued because of "several" Minnesota laws "allowing immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition rates and financial aid."
The complaint was filed in federal court in Minneapolis, and charges that Minnesota laws "explicitly classify aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States as residents under certain conditions, and thus eligible for reduced tuition and free tuition, respectively, for public state colleges while U.S. citizens from other states must pay higher out-of-state tuition rates and are ineligible for the free tuition."
The charge continues, "This discriminatory treatment in favor of aliens not lawfully present in the United States over U.S. citizens is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law, which provides that 'an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.'"
Minnesota, the complaint charges, is violating the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution with its agenda, so the court should declare Minnesota's laws "preempted and permanently enjoin their enforcement."
Federal law "prohibits States from providing aliens not lawfully present in the United States with any postsecondary education benefit that is denied to U.S. citizens. That prohibition is categorical, yet Minnesota is flagrantly violating it. This Court should put an end to this unequal treatment of Americans that is an unequivocal and ongoing violation of federal law by entering a permanent injunction against the enforcement of Minnesota State laws that mandate the grant of unlawful state benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the United States," the filing states.
The state's financial aid program, to which it gives illegal aliens access, is called the North Star Promise.
The report noted President Donald Trump has signed two executive orders on the subject, "Ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders" and "Ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders," and each of those instructs departments and agencies to see to it that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to "unqualified aliens."
Leftist Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison also is being sued.
Minnesota simply provides recognition and privileges to illegal aliens if they meet several baseline qualifications, such as showing they've filed for lawful immigration status.
Attorney General Pam Bondi explained, "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens. The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first."
The report noted that instate fees and tuition for one University of Minnesota branch total about $17,000 a year, a scheduled applied to those illegal aliens. Out-of-state U.S. residents are charged more than $38,000.
The Supreme Court just gave President Trump a major boost, ruling he may remove illegal aliens to countries other than their native lands without notice.
The court reversed the ruling of a Democrat judge who tried to place constraints on Trump's power to conduct third-country removals to war-torn nations like South Sudan.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented, with Sotomayor accusing the court of "rewarding lawlessness."
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote.
The dispute is one of many legal challenges brought against Trump immigration officials on due process grounds. Several of these cases have involved losses for Trump, leaving the president and his supporters exasperated with "activist" judges.
The Supreme Court's ruling is a reprieve from that streak of losses, lifting a major roadblock to Trump's mass deportation efforts.
Lawyers for the immigrants in the case, convicted criminals from countries like Cuba and Vietnam, argued they face persecution and torture in a strange, dangerous country, and a district judge ruled they must have a chance to fight their removals.
The Trump administration had said the district court's order undermined Trump's efforts to address the "worst of the worst illegal aliens."
"Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing. "In addition to usurping the executive's authority over immigration policy, the injunction disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts."
The Department of Homeland Security called the Supreme Court's ruling a "victory for the safety and security of the American people."
"DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," a statement read in part. "Fire up the deportation planes."
Despite Trump's Supreme Court win, District Judge Brian Murphy has continued to insist that some of the immigrants cannot be summarily removed to South Sudan, citing a separate order that Trump did not appeal.
The immigrants have been detained inside a converted shipping container at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, a country in East Africa near South Sudan.
The Trump administration says Murphy is out of line, and they are calling on the Supreme Court to correct him. The Justice Department even suggested the court "may consider ordering that the case be reassigned to a different district judge."
"The district court’s ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals,” the administration said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Assuring members of the Christian faith that laws that specifically target religious practices "have no place in our society," federal officials have sued the state of Washington over its attack on religion.
The state has adopted a new law requiring Catholic priests, as well as other ministers, to tattle to police should they hear of a possible offense during a confession, which before now had been exempt from mandatory reporting.
"Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession have no place in our society," explained Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general.
The DOJ filed a complaint in federal court in Washington arguing that the state's new law violates the First and 14th Amendments by compelling clergy to report what they learn in confession or face criminal penalties.
The Washington Examiner said, "Confession is one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Disclosing any information a parishioner shares during these sessions is grounds for the excommunication of a priest from the Catholic Church. However, if a priest fails to report suspected abuse, even if they learn of it during confession, they could face almost a year in jail and a $5,000 fine."
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who has not only testified before Congress on constitutional disputes, but represented members in court in those fights, pointed out the state's decision to alter the confessional requirements of the church.
"The Democrats have added to the four stages of the confession. Examination, confession, absolution, and penance may now be followed by incarceration," he explained.
The state's attempt is a direct attack on the church, the DOJ said.
"SB 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences," Dhillon said.
"The Justice Department will not sit idly by when states mount attacks on the free exercise of religion."
Gov. Bob Ferguson has pledged to enforce the violation of the rights of clergy members.
They would be required to report to police any "reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or neglect."
Most states exempt clergy when information is obtained during a religious confession.
Democrats in Washington refused.
The DOJ now contends that violates religious canon law, which strictly forbids breaching the seal of confession under penalty of excommunication.
The DOJ said part of the problem was that the law deliberately interferes with the religious requirements.
A lawsuit over the law had been filed just day earlier by lawyers for multiple Orthodox churches.
The DOJ first began investigating the law last month, warning that it "appears on its face to violate the First Amendment."
The churches' lawyer said, "The First Amendment guarantees that governments cannot single out religious believers for worse treatment. Washington is targeting priests by compelling them to break the sacred confidentiality of confession while protecting other confidential communications, like those between attorneys and their clients. That's rank religious discrimination. We are urging the court to swiftly restore this constitutionally protected freedom of churches and priests in Washington state."
WND previously reported when Democrats in Washington state "declared open war on Christianity, and the Catholic Church has responded with a volley that includes its commitment to defy a new law."
Turley noted the law is "blatantly unconstitutional."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'The district court judge in Boston has said he's going to defy the ruling. So expect fireworks tomorrow when we hold this judge accountable for refusing to obey the Supreme Court'
Instances of anarchy in the American judiciary are self-evident. There's Hannah Dugan, the Wisconsin judge who is on video diverting federal ICE agents and apparently helping an illegal alien criminal escape.
She is arguing in court now that she has absolute immunity for anything she does in her courtroom, or even her courthouse.
Just like the kings of civilizations past.
Moving to the national level, leftists long have complained that President Donald Trump disagrees with and doesn't follow the rulings of the federal court system.
On the first point, they're right, and Trump never has concealed his disagreements with some of the outlandish rulings – like the order to turn jets deporting illegal alien criminals around while they were in the air to return to America. And other entry level judges who claim to control the executive branch's decisions nationwide.
On the second point, wrong. As Trump does follow even the rulings to which he has legitimate objections.
But now a leftist and "activist" judge in Boston has decided the Supreme Court rulings don't apply to him and his court, and the outrage from leftists would compete with crickets for silence.
But the fireworks soon are expected.
It was in a 6-3 decision on Monday that the high court gave Trump's administration a huge victory: deciding that illegal aliens could be deported via "third countries" without requirements that they be allowed to present their case against that.
The fight is over what Trump's officials have called "the worst of the worst," violent criminals accused of crimes in America but who were refused permission to return to their home countries.
Several leftist organizations in America fought in the courts on their behalf, claiming they could not be moved to third countries. A leftist judge, the Biden-nominated Brian Murphy, agreed, but the Supreme Court stayed that order.
Some of the criminals have been held in a makeshift room in Africa, guarded constantly by federal officers, because the Trump administration is not allowed to finish the deportation process there.
At the Western Journal was a commentary: "Remember how President Donald Trump's administration was supposed to listen to judges when they issued injunctions, even if said judge didn't have jurisdiction over the entire nation? Well, as it turns out, that was all bogus. There is one court that has jurisdiction over the entire nation — the Supreme Court, for all you dullards out there who don't get the point — and it handed down a ruling in a controversial case. A judge appointed by President Joe Biden is deciding he can ignore that ruling — and the crickets from the left are more deafening than anything you'll hear in the late, muggy hours of a countryside summer night."
Tricia McLaughlin of the Department of Homeland Security said the ruling was a victory "for the safety and security of the American people."
Murphy, instead, insisted, his order "remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today's stay of the Preliminary Injunction."
The Gateway Pundit noted Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller held an opinion on that.
"Yes, this is an incredible victory — the Supreme Court win. It allows President Trump, as the law has long said but the courts have blocked, to send illegal aliens convicted of rape, murder, homicide, assault, battery, and crimes against children to any country around the world that is willing to accept them. Whether that be South Sudan, Somalia, or Ethiopia — any country in the world that is willing to accept these monsters — we can get them out of our country and be free of them forever. The only thing I have to share tonight, Sean — and this is a bit of breaking news — is that the district court judge in Boston has said he's going to defy the Supreme Court's ruling. So expect fireworks tomorrow when we hold this judge accountable for refusing to obey the Supreme Court."
The fireworks didn't take long to appear.
Solicitor General John Sauer Tuesday morning was at the Supreme Court, asking for a decision.
"The district court's ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals. For over two months now, the Executive has labored under an injunction that this Court yesterday deemed unenforceable. This Court should immediately make clear that the district court's enforcement order has no effect, and put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the Executive Branch and its agents, who remain under baseless threat of contempt as they are forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict."
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a lower court's ruling to give President Donald Trump's administration the ability to deport criminal illegal aliens to a third country, the BBC reported. The 6-3 decision on Monday fell along ideological lines among the justices.
The administration was sued after deporting certain illegal immigrants to places other than their countries of origin. The lower court demanded that the government provide a "meaningful opportunity" for illegal immigrants to have input in the matter.
The case involved eight migrants whom the administration called "the worst of the worst" offenders. These criminals from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam, deported last month, are now en route to South Sudan.
BREAKING 🚨 The Supreme Court hands Trump a MASSIVE Victory. Trump can resume deportations to third World countries like Sudan without notice
6-3 with Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson dissenting
THIS IS HUGE 🔥 pic.twitter.com/oq3ZbeUkbm
— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) June 23, 2025
Predictably, it was Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor who dissented from the majority. They called the practice "rewarding lawlessness," even as they sided with the criminal illegal immigrants.
In the initial decision handed down by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, he claimed these migrants who felt they would be killed or tortured would have the right to plead their case. Murphy, a Biden appointee, believed they had that right to voice concerns even if they had already exhausted their other legal appeals.
The dissenting justices called the deportations to a third country a "gross abuse" by the administration. Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion and railed against the measure.
"Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable," Sotomayor wrote.
While awaiting the decision, the migrants were kept at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. Now these deportees, who are considered serious criminals so bad their countries of origin won't take them, are headed for a place where their return won't be refused.
Despite the handwringing, it's clear that this is a positive move for Trump's mission of making America safe from illegal immigration. Sending migrants to a third country has many benefits, not the least of which is deterrence against future lawbreaking.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin touted the decision in a statement Monday. "The Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the safety and security of the American people," McLaughlin said.
"The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and now, the Trump Administration can exercise its undisputed authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare," she noted. McLaughlin also chastised the justices for their lack of concern for America's safety.
"If these activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets. DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them. Fire up the deportation planes," McLaughlin said.
Figuring out how to deport and keep out illegal immigrants is imperative to America's security. This decision by the high court is the right one with those goals in mind.
A federal appeals court has blocked Louisiana from displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country, but the panel of three judges that decided the case was dominated by two Democrat appointees.
“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”
The battle isn't over yet, with Louisiana's Republican leaders vowing to take the case to the Supreme Court.
"We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court," said Republican attorney general Liz Murrill.
“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Governor Jeff Landry (R) said.
The appeals court ruled that Louisiana's law is "plainly unconstitutional," upholding a lower court decision that blocked the statute.
"H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional. The district court did not err," the appeals court said. "H.B. 71’s minimum requirements provide sufficient details about how the Ten Commandments must be displayed. Plaintiffs have shown that those displays will cause an "irreparable" deprivation of their First Amendment rights."
The case is a classic dispute on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. While often understood to require a complete separation of religion from public life, interpretations of its text vary widely, from the strictly secular to a more flexible reading that respects the important role of religion in upholding a moral society.
The Ten Commandments have moral and educational purposes that are not strictly religious, making the debate over their public display a complex issue. Defenders of Louisiana's law point out that the Ten Commandments are an important part of America's legal and cultural heritage, but some argue that they have no place in public schools, which serve students of different faiths.
Texas has enacted a new law similar to Louisiana's that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments, setting up more legal challenges on the issue.
In 1980, a divided Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Kentucky, finding it was plainly religious in nature, without any secular purpose.
Of course, the Supreme Court looks much different today, giving conservatives fresh hope of a different outcome.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Can a state force all workers at a Ford plant to purchase Toyotas? Can Republicans be forced to donate to Democrats? Can vegetarians be forced to buy meat and eat it? Are bureaucrats allowed to coerce a Muslim to fund a Christian event?
Silly questions to be sure. But none of them less than what the state of Oregon has done, and has prompted the question before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Can those with religious objections to abortion be forced by the state to pay for abortion?
It was James Bopp Jr., of the Bopp Law Firm, who argued before the court that it should overrule a lower court's claim that Oregon can require Oregon Right to Life, a pro-life group, to pay for abortion.
"This case is saturated with examples of the exact things the Constitution prohibits. The First Amendment does not permit the government to favor secular organizations over religious ones. It does not permit the government to favor only the religious organizations of which it approves. It does not permit the government to draft laws in a way that achieves a religious gerrymander to ensure disfavored religious organizations cannot receive certain benefits. And it does not permit courts to second guess whether an organization's religious beliefs are, in fact, religious. The Ninth Circuit panel's decision should be easy since the trial court disregarded the principles in so many ways," Bopp said.
At issue is a mandate from the state of Oregon, that demands health insurance plans pay for abortion.
"Even though ORTL objects to abortion on religious grounds, Oregon declined to provide an exception that would cover ORTL—all while the state did include both secular exceptions and exceptions for other religious organizations in the Mandate. Accordingly, in plain violation of ORTL's religious liberty, the Mandate requires ORTL to purchase employee insurance plans that cover abortion, the very thing ORTL is devoted to fighting against," the law firm's report said.
It is uncertain exactly when the 9th Circuit will issue an opinion on the fight.
Bopp told the court the lower court judge "overlooked several key factors in its determination. For example, although ORTL had provided ample evidence of its religious beliefs, the trial court doubted ORTL's religiosity. Similarly, although the Mandate contains numerous secular exceptions, the district court relied on the single religiously-oriented exception (a minor exception which only gave an exemption to churches) to conclude that the law was favorable to religion. The district court even found that another exception that says nothing at all about religion, but instead focuses on coverage offered in 2017, is nonetheless a religious exception."
The legal team explained, "The government may not require anyone to do something that violates sincere religious belief all while giving others a pass based on secular criteria. Furthermore, the government may not pick and choose religious 'winners' and 'losers' by creating its own definition of 'religious.'"
Lois Anderson, of ORTL, said, "The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion—the precise human rights violation we are dedicated to opposing—is blatantly unconstitutional and obviously unjust."