The San José Unified School District stripped the Fellowship of Christian Athletes of its status as a fully recognized student organization at three high schools in the district.  It did so because FCA requires its student leaders to affirm a Statement of Faith.  The Robertson Center filed a friend of the court brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting FCA.

In August 2022, the Ninth Circuit panel ruled in favor of FCA.  But the School District asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision, and the en banc court agreed to rehear the case.  In early 2023, the Robertson Center filed another friend of the court brief with the en banc Ninth Circuit making First Amendment and Equal Access Act arguments.

This ruling sets an important precedent in a circuit court that was historically one of the most hostile to religious liberty.  It will ensure religious organizations like FCA will be treated the same as other groups in public schools. 

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law is an academic center within the Regent University School of Law.  Established in 2020, the Center pairs advocacy and scholarship to advance first principles in constitutional law, including originalism, separation of powers, and religious liberty.  The Robertson Center has represented former members of Congress, Christian ministries, and others in briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts.  Learn more about the work of the Robertson Center at https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/our-work/.

###

The post Robertson Center Celebrates Religious Freedom Victory for Fellowship of Christian Athletes appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (June 29, 2023) – The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law celebrates today’s United States Supreme Court ruling in Groff v. DeJoy.  This marks the third consecutive U.S. Supreme Court term in which the Robertson Center has filed a brief in support of the prevailing party.

In February 2023, the Robertson Center and attorneys from McGuireWoods filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the petitioner, postal carrier Gerald Groff.  Mr. Groff, an evangelical Christian, was forced to resign from his job after the United States Postal Service refused to accommodate his Sunday Sabbath observance.  The Robertson Center’s brief presented the Center’s original research showing that a ruling in favor of Mr. Groff would benefit working-class religious Americans.  The Robertson Center’s research was also published by the George Mason Law Review Forum and can be found here.

“Today’s ruling is great news for all Americans of faith.  But as our research shows, those in the working class will benefit most.  We were honored to play a small part in correcting a great injustice,” said Brad Lingo, dean of Regent University School of Law and executive director of the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.  “It was an amazing experience to research and present our findings directly to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Alex Touchet, a 2022 Regent Law graduate and fellow at the Robertson Center.

About the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law is an academic center within the Regent University School of Law.  Established in 2020, the Robertson Center pairs advocacy and scholarship to advance first principles in constitutional law, including originalism, separation of powers, and religious liberty.  The Robertson Center has represented former members of Congress, Christian ministries, and others in briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts.

About Regent University

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university, with more than 13,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University has been ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 11 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2023).

###

The post Robertson Center for Constitutional Law Celebrates Religious Liberty Victory in Groff v. DeJoy appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (Mar. 16, 2023) – Regent Law welcomed Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart to a “fireside chat” with Dean Brad Lingo on Tuesday, March 14, 2023.  The School of Law’s Robertson Center for Constitutional Law and the Federalist Society sponsored the event.   

Mississippi Solicitor General Stewart is widely known for successfully arguing the landmark case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before the U.S. Supreme Court—the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Regent law students, faculty, and staff met in the Robertson Hall Moot Courtroom to hear Dean Lingo and Mississippi Solicitor General Stewart discuss the significance of arguing a case before the highest court and how the resulting decision will shape the future of the nation.  “It was a joy to host my friend and former colleague Scott Stewart and allow him to give our students an insider’s view of one of the most important Supreme Court cases of our time,” said Brad Lingo, Dean of Regent Law. “I hope our students were inspired by his message and his example.” 

After the “fireside chat,” attendees were treated to a meet-and-greet reception with Stewart.  “It was an incredible honor to meet and learn from Mr. Stewart. His message about boldness and character and how they intertwine with law was inspiring,” said Tyler Gustafson, President of the Regent Law chapter of the Federalist Society. “The message further confirmed my call to Regent Law and future calling in the legal field to change the world for Christ.” Mr. Gustafson, a 3L, will clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit after he graduates.

About Regent Law

Regent Law’s more than 3,300 graduates practice law in 49 states and over 20 countries and include 38 currently sitting judges.  The School of Law is currently ranked 28^th in the nation for obtaining judicial clerkships and 21^st in the nation for Ultimate Bar Passage. The school offers the Juris Doctor (J.D.) in three-year and part-time formats, an online M.A. in Law, an online M.A. in Financial Planning & Law, an on-campus and online LL.M. in Human Rights, an on-campus and online LL.M. in American Legal Studies, and an online B.A. in Law.

About Regent University

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university, with more than 13,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University has been ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 11 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2023).

###

The post Life in the Law: A Fireside Chat with Scott Stewart, the Mississippi Solicitor General Who Argued the Dobbs Case at the U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

VIRGINIA BEACH, VA (Mar. 14, 2023) – The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law just had its most active month since it was established in June of 2020.  In the past month, the Robertson Center filed a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief in Groff v. DeJoy, filed an amicus brief in support of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and represented two former members of Congress in a Department of Health and Human Services rulemaking proceeding regarding the conscience rights of healthcare workers.

The Robertson Center pairs scholarship and advocacy to promote first principles in constitutional law. The amicus brief in Groff v. DeJoy was the fifth U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief filed by the Robertson Center in less than three years. “It was an incredible learning experience to work on a U.S. Supreme Court brief and present our original research directly to the Court,” said Alex Touchet, Constitutional Law Fellow at the Robertson Center. “I can’t imagine a better way to start my legal career.”

“We launched the Robertson Center less than three years ago.  In that short time, we’ve already established a national reputation for excellence.  As our reputation has grown, so too have the opportunities for our faculty and students to participate in some high-profile matters,” said Brad Lingo, dean of Regent University’s School of Law.

Here’s a look at the Robertson Center’s recent matters:

Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174

The Robertson Center filed an amicus brief on February 28 asking the Supreme Court to overturn Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, a 1977 case that weakened Title VII’s protections for religious employees.  The brief describes the Robertson Center’s original research showing that more than 80% of religious accommodation claims are brought by working-class Americans.  The brief asks the Court to restore the protections provided by the plain language of Title VII before religious, working-class Americans suffer more harm.

Ninth Circuit Amicus Brief in Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San José Unified School District Board of Education, No. 22-15827

This is the second amicus brief the Robertson Center has filed before the Ninth Circuit in Fellowship of Christian Athletes.  The first brief, filed in 2022, supported the Fellowship of Christian Athletes student club on appeal after San José Unified School District stripped the club of its status as a fully recognized student organization at three high schools in the district.

After the en banc Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the case, the Robertson Center filed this amicus brief on February 22 to reiterate its First Amendment and Equal Access Act arguments and to clarify aspects of the Equal Access Act that the lower court and the School District got wrong.

Written Comment Regarding the Department of Health and Human Services’ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Safeguarding the Rights of Conscience as Protected by Federal Statutes, 88 Fed. Reg. 820

The Robertson Center filed a written comment on behalf of Senator Daniel Coats and Representative David Weldon in a Department of Health and Human Services rulemaking proceeding. This comment comes three years after the Center filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit on behalf of Senator Coats and Representative Weldon in New York v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in 2020.  There, the Center argued in support of the Department’s 2019 rule that enforced various federal conscience protections, including the Coats-Snowe Amendment and the Weldon Amendment.

Here, Senator Coats’ and Representative Weldon’s comment asks the Department to reject the erroneous reasoning put forth in the Department’s 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and to retain the protections provided by the 2019 iteration of that rule.

Learn more about the work of the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law at https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/our-work/.

About the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law is an academic center within the Regent University School of Law.  Established in 2020, the Robertson Center pairs advocacy and scholarship to advance first principles in constitutional law, including originalism, separation of powers, and religious liberty.  The Robertson Center has represented former members of Congress, Christian ministries, and others in briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court and other appellate courts.

About Regent University

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university, with more than 13,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University has been ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 11 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2023).

###

The post Robertson Center for Constitutional Law Impacting Cases at U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

Building a Case for Excellence

Since its founding two years ago, the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law has played a key role in landmark Supreme Court decisions.

When Regent University’s School of Law established the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in 2020, the goal was to advance America’s first principles, including limited government, originalism, separation of powers, and religious liberty. Fast forward two years, and this academic center—that pairs scholarship and advocacy—is already making a historical impact on landmark Supreme Court cases.

“There has never been a better time to be a conservative, constitutional litigator. There’s a tremendous amount of opportunities,” says Brad Lingo, dean of Regent University School of Law and the first executive director of the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law. “We launched the Center to do three things. One, train the next generation of advocates. Two, be a beacon of light to the legal academy. Three, influence the broader culture. The way we do that is by pairing scholarship and advocacy from a conservative Christian perspective. That’s really what makes our Center unique.”

Lingo adds that students can receive real-life experience and training by working on cutting-edge matters of constitutional law. Since its founding, the Robertson Center has already represented former members of Congress, Christian ministries, and others in seven briefs before the United States Supreme Court and federal appellate courts. 

On July 28, 2021, the Center partnered with the Christian Legal Society and the late Judge Kenneth Starr to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Dobbs was the most significant abortion-related case since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalized the procedure nationwide in 1973.

The Robertson Center’s second of four amicus briefs before the Supreme Court argued that states should be allowed to craft abortion policy through the democratic process rather than through the courts. In the Dobbs decision, the justices ruled 6-3 that a Mississippi law prohibiting most abortions after 15 weeks was constitutional, overturning Roe v. Wade.

“This was a generational victory for the pro-life movement and the rule of law,” Lingo insists. “In the Dobbs case, we wrote the amicus brief and then wrote a scholarly article on some of the same topics. Our academic work helps reinforce and give credibility to our advocacy, and our advocacy work feeds into our scholarship. In all of that, a really important, underlying thing we’re trying to do is train students. They’re getting an up-close look working with us.”

The Center is named in honor of Dr. M.G. “Pat” Robertson, Regent University’s founder, chancellor and CEO. For more than half a century, the Yale Law School graduate has served as a strong, vocal advocate for religious freedom and the rule of law around the world.

“Regent University School of Law was established to train leaders to defend our Constitution and the principles upon which our nation was founded,” Robertson said in 2020. “The creation of the Center is one more step toward fulfilling that mission.”

In addition to serving as the Center’s executive director for the past two years, Lingo is a Regent Law faculty member and was named the 2022 Professor of the Year by the university’s student bar association. In June, the Harvard Law School graduate was appointed dean of the School of Law. This fall, new Regent Law Professor Erin Morrow Hawley joined the Robertson Center as a senior fellow.

“It’s a wonderful opportunity for Regent students to contribute to the legal and academic debate,” Hawley told Impact. “I think there’s a huge need for law schools like Regent that focus, not only on academic excellence but also on equipping Christians to live out their calling as attorneys, lawyers and policymakers.”

In addition to her new roles at Regent, Hawley serves as senior counsel to the appellate team at Alliance Defending Freedom and as senior legal fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. She also holds impressive academic credentials and has litigated extensively before the Supreme Court.

“It’s fantastic to be able to teach students and especially to be invested in the Center, where they get hands-on experience in crafting and making arguments and making an impact on the legal system and on court cases,” Hawley said.

In addition to submitting four amicus briefs to the Supreme Court and three to lower federal appellate courts since its founding, the Robertson Center also has published five scholarly articles in respected law journals. And, through the Center’s internship program, Lingo, Hawley, and others are mentoring the next generation of attorneys who will defend the rights and principles enshrined in the Constitution.

“It has been an incredible learning experience to observe leading Christian constitutional lawyers strategize and craft a Supreme Court brief,” says Gabrielle Bruno (LAW ’23), a third-year student at Regent Law and Center intern. “My experience with the Center has deepened my understanding of appellate advocacy and sparked a passion for getting more involved in this work.”

Bruno adds, “The Center works tremendously hard to impact our country and influence our culture while simultaneously providing unique educational opportunities for the students at Regent’s School of Law.”

“This kind of academic environment—working on important constitutional issues and writing amicus briefs before courts of appeals and the Supreme Court—was really exciting to me,” says Alex Touchet (LAW ’22), a former intern who will serve as a fellow for the Robertson Center this fall.

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law is providing opportunities for Regent Law students like Bruno and Touchet to get real-world, firsthand experience working on Supreme Court and appellate court briefs.

“I think the Robertson Center is just going to be able to build upon the success it has enjoyed in a short time period under Lingo’s leadership,” Hawley predicts. “We’re going to continue to present the courts with really strong arguments on why religious liberty, in particular, is one of the core, and fundamental, promises of the First Amendment. That amendment—and its protection of both free speech and religious liberty—allow us to have all of the other freedoms and protections in the Bill of Rights.”

Lingo, who litigated pro bono and religious-liberty cases while in private practice, acknowledges that additional financial support is needed to continue university-led scholarship and advocacy to preserve, protect and uphold the Constitution.

“We’ve earned the respect of many in the religious-liberties bar. That’s been a successful phase one,” he explains. “For phase two, I would like to see us grow. What we’ve learned over the past two years is that there’s a tremendous need for this sort of work. There are not many people or organizations that are willing and able to participate in high-profile, religious-liberties matters. Our Center has demonstrated that we can do it right.”

The post Regent University “Impact” Newsletter Commends Robertson Center for Constitutional Law in Fall 2022 Issue appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

One of the foremost constitutional theorists of the founding generation, John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”¹ He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”²

Many of our Founders were men of faith or were influenced strongly by the Judeo-Christian tradition.³ They accepted the premise of mankind’s imperfect nature. They had experienced first-hand the oppressive dictates of Parliament and the Crown that led to the American Revolution. And they were rightly suspicious of the accumulation of governmental power by one person or a small body — “the very definition of tyranny” according to Madison.⁴

Consistent with these experiences and beliefs, the Founders imbued liberty-preserving principles into the very structure of the new government. They divided power between federal and state governments, apportioned federal power among three branches of government, and limited the power of the federal government to certain delegated functions. But the Founders also knew that these devices alone were inadequate to preserve and sustain our new nation.

Instructors of Virtue

Why did they believe that the success of the union ultimately depended on the virtue of the people? Simply put, the Founders knew that government was downstream from culture. A virtuous people would courageously defend the rights endowed by their Creator and restored by the blood of patriots. But a fearful people would readily cede these rights in exchange for a fleeting sense of security. As Princeton’s Robbie George explains, “[P]eople lacking in virtue could be counted on to trade liberty for protection, for financial or personal security, for comfort … for having their problems solved quickly. And there will always be people occupying or standing for public office who will be happy to offer the deal.”⁵

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

-James Madison

So how do we cultivate the virtue needed to sustain our republic? It is, after all, contrary to the founding premise of man’s imperfection. And to entrust the government with this task is to invite the fox into the proverbial henhouse. Indeed, Madison observed, “[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”⁶

It falls, then, to the family, the church, and educational institutions to transmit “to each new generation the virtues without which free societies cannot survive: basic honesty, integrity, self-restraint, concern for others and respect for their dignity and rights, civic-mindedness, and the like.”⁷ In other words, even the structural constraints of our Constitution will fail without institutions to teach people how those constraints protect liberty, to explain why that liberty is vital to the success of our country, and to inculcate the virtue needed to resist a culture of immediate gratification.⁸

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law

Institutions of higher education like Regent University play an important role in preserving the values on which our nation was founded. For this reason, we are excited to launch Regent Law’s newest endeavor, The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law. The Center will promote first principles in constitutional law such as textualism, originalism, separation of powers, limited government, judicial modesty, and religious freedom — all while helping educate and cultivate the next generation of Christian lawyers.

The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law will promote first principles in constitutional law while educating and cultivating the next generation of Christian lawyers.

The Place of Christianity in Constitutional Law

Such an endeavor prompts the question: How should a Christian think about constitutional law? To begin, we approach this question with humility. Christianity is not “a club to be wielded against those who do not share” that faith.⁹ Instead, Christians are called upon to recognize our own limitations and shortcomings.

Although our faith does not compel a single legal or political philosophy, certain aspects of Christian belief inform our views of constitutional law. As discussed above, man is selfish and imperfect. That makes us inherently skeptical of concentrated power. History well illustrates concentrated power’s destructive impact on liberty. We should distrust even those who claim that they can “bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth through our political efforts” and know that “[i]f we allow our governments to try, the result will be tyranny.”¹⁰

Our Founders understood this well. Indeed, George Washington extolled the virtues of our nation’s pluralist legal order in his August 18, 1790, letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. … For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”¹¹We also know — indeed, we hold self-evident — that government officials, lawyers, and judges are not the creators of our rights. Our Creator endowed those rights to We the People.¹² Our Constitution recognizes this, restraining the power of the federal government and preserving the liberty of the people.

Textualism & Originalism Vs. Living Constitutionalism

This skepticism of state power and a desire to preserve democratic self-government accord most naturally with an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. Originalism confines interpretation of the Constitution to the words of the constitutional text and tethers that interpretation to the public understanding, as closely as it can be discerned, of what the words of the Constitution meant when ratified (plus any lawful amendments). (Originalism’s cousin, textualism, applies a similar interpretive method to statutory law.) As the late Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia explained, “Originalists believe that the provisions of the Constitution have a fixed meaning” so that its words “mean today what they meant when they were adopted, nothing more and nothing less.”¹³ Such constraints limit the reach of the unelected judiciary and preserve the political power of We the People.

Contrast these views with “living Constitutionalism,” which rose to prominence during the 20th century. Rather than ask what result the text or original public meaning of the Constitution requires, a “living Constitution” philosophy empowers the judge to consider what he or she thinks the Constitution should mean today. The allure of this approach is strong. After all, it is often much easier to convince five Supreme Court justices of the need for change than it is to amend the Constitution itself or convince the people’s representatives to change the law. As former Attorney General Edwin Meese pointed out, living constitutionalism “remold[s] principles in light of policies” instead of “judg[ing] policies in light of principles.”¹⁴

Focusing on the result, rather than on the analysis, delegates immense power, concentrated in members of the judiciary, to make decisions about some of the most important and controversial issues in society. Even worse, it allows them to make those decisions largely unmoored from the constitutional text and absent any democratic accountability. One simply cannot reconcile notions of popular sovereignty and skepticism of concentrated power with the idea that society should provide a small number of fallible judges with the power to infuse the constitutional text with their own personal values and policy preferences on many of the most significant — and hotly debated — societal issues. Such a delegation to unelected judges relinquishes democratic self-government. By contrast, requiring judges to adhere to the text and its original meaning provides constitutional decision-making with democratic legitimacy. We expect judges to find and adhere to the original meaning — to the extent that it can be determined — because that is the meaning that gained the political support of We the People required for ratification. This grant of authority, from the Creator, to We the People, and then to the federal government, is what furnishes our Constitution with its legitimacy.

The Renaissance Inspired by Justice Antonin Scalia

Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon is known to have remarked that most of his constitutional law students enter his class, whether they know it or not, as originalists. That’s how we intuitively read documents, whether it be a constitution, Shakespearean play, or an 18th century fried chicken recipe.¹⁵ We naturally try to make sense of these documents by seeking to understand what the words meant when they were written. It is a testament to the power of educational institutions, then, that while so many students enter law school with a common-sense inclination to read legal documents as originalists, so few leave law school with the same view.

That said, here’s some news that might surprise those who have not closely followed constitutional jurisprudence over the past 30 years or so: Thanks largely to Scalia, there has been a renaissance in textualism and originalism. In fact, Justice Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School appointed to the Supreme Court by 44th U.S. President Barack Obama, opened the second day of her 2010 confirmation hearings by acknowledging that now, “We are all originalists.”¹⁶ Later, Kagan reflected on the emergence of textualism in statutory interpretation, declaring that “we’re all textualists now.”¹⁷

Kagan’s statements are truer today than when they were first made. U.S. President Donald Trump has appointed two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and roughly 20 percent of the judges on the federal courts of appeals, virtually all of whom subscribe to textualism and originalism.

From Classroom to Courtroom

 This change is not merely academic. It’s having a real effect on outcomes in court. The lay reader surprised by the revival in originalism might be even more surprised to hear that, despite some widely publicized losses, defenders of religious liberty are having significant success in court. For example, the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose Supreme Court practice is led by Regent Law graduate Kristen Waggoner (’97), has won nine religious liberties cases in the last seven years at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now, even many left-leaning lawyers and scholars use textualist and originalist interpretive methods to advocate for their positions. That is a significant change. And it is reason for optimism.

Of course, originalism and textualism will not always lead to results favored by one political group or another. Adoption of those methods means that case outcomes are based on what the words of the text demand, regardless of whose ox is gored. Moreover, lawyers and judges may still disagree on the proper interpretation of the text, or worse, attempt to use “originalist” or “textualist” arguments as cover to infuse the text with their preferred meaning.

So, What’s Next?

Expect federal courts to continue to embrace textualism and originalism in the years to come as Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh stay closely tethered to these modes of interpretation. Expect increasing use of originalism and textualism by those on both the right and the left. And, although the path might be bumpy at times, expect that this interpretive shift will, on balance, diminish the Supreme Court’s role as an agent of social change. Expect the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law to advocate powerfully for the self-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in our Constitution. And expect Regent University’s School of Law to continue faithfully training the next generation’s fearless, principled advocates of liberty.

The biggest threat to our constitutional order … is the failure to pass to subsequent generations the character, virtue and knowledge required to protect the constitutional safeguards.

Overcoming the Greatest Threat

The biggest threat to our constitutional order is not a string of non-originalist decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. It is instead, as our Founders warned, the failure to pass to subsequent generations the character, virtue, and knowledge required to protect the constitutional safeguards. Victories in court will be hollow and ephemeral if we fail to instill in future generations the virtues upon which our nation was founded. The decisions of the Supreme Court and, ultimately, the preservation of the Constitution itself rest downstream from culture. Preserving the Constitution requires maintaining the virtuous culture it was designed to serve. We hope that Regent University School of Law and its Robertson Center for Constitutional Law will have a prominent role in preserving, protecting, and defending our Constitution.

¹ “From John Adams to Massachusetts Militia, 11 October 1798,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed Feb. 28, 2020, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102.
² James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 55.
³ See generally Mark David Hall, Did America Have a Christian Founding?, The Heritage Foundation, accessed Mar. 6, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding.
⁴ James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 47.
⁵ Robert P. George, Ruling to Serve, First Things, accessed Feb. 14, 2020, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/04/ruling-to-serve.
⁶ James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 51.
⁷ George, supra note 6.
⁸ See id.
⁹ See William J. Stuntz, Christian Legal Theory, 116 Harvard Law Review 1707, 1726 (2003) (book review).
¹⁰ Michael W. McConnell, Old Liberalism, New Liberalism, and People of Faith, in Christian Perspectives on Legal Thought, 8 (M. McConnell, R. Cochran & A. Carmella eds. 2001).
¹¹ “From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, 18 August 1790,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed Feb. 28, 2020, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135.
¹² See The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
¹³ Antonin Scalia, Interpreting the Constitution, in Scalia Speaks 188 (C. Scalia & E. Whelan, eds. 2017).
¹⁴ Speech by Attorney General Edwin Meese III before the American Bar Association on July 9, 1985, Federalist Soc’y, accessed on Mar. 6, 2020, https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-great-debate-attorney-general-ed-meese-iii-july-9-1985.
¹⁵ Gary Lawson, On Reading Recipes . . . and Constitutions, 85 Geo. L.J. 1823 (1997).
¹⁶ Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 62 (2010) (testimony of Elena Kagan).
¹⁷ Harvard Law School, The Antonin Scalia Lecture Series: A Dialogue with Justice Elena Kagan on the Reading of Statutes, YOUTUBE (Nov. 25, 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0Tg.

The post Preserving a Constitution Designed for a Moral and Religious People appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.

“Regent University School of Law was established to train leaders to defend our Constitution and the principles upon which our nation was founded,” said Regent’s founder, chancellor & CEO, Dr. M. G. “Pat” Robertson. “The creation of this center is one more step toward fulfilling that mission.” Robertson expressed profound gratitude to the advisory board and Regent leadership for “the wonderful honor” of dedicating the center in his name.

Leading the Robertson Center for Constitutional Law as chair is former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina and Regent University School of Law dean, Mark Martin. Former judge and U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, J.D., and Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice Jay Sekulow, J.D., Ph.D., serve as honorary co-chairs of the center. Professor Bradley Lingo serves as executive director.

“The center will advocate to protect rights secured in the Constitution and work to restore enumerated rights that have been eroded or lost over time,” said Chief Justice Martin. “We will always be guided by the judicial philosophy expressed to me by the late Justice Scalia: If the words of our Constitution do not actually mean something, then we are simply making it up as we go.”

The Robertson Center will defend constitutional principles in court, publish white papers and scholarly articles, host distinguished judges and attorneys, advise foreign governments, support like-minded organizations, and train the next generation of advocates to defend first principles in constitutional law.

On May 12, 2020, the center filed its first brief. The brief was filed on behalf of amici former members of Congress Sen. Dan Coats and Rep. David Weldon, defending and explaining the meaning of legislation they sponsored protecting the freedom of conscience rights of healthcare workers. The case, NY v. HHS, is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“We were honored to represent Senator Coats and Representative Weldon in our first case,” said Lingo. “Those who work in healthcare should never have to choose between their careers and their conscience.” He continued, “And we were equally thrilled to work with Judge Starr on our next case. I can’t imagine a better partner for the center’s debut at the United States Supreme Court.”

On June 3, 2020, the center filed its first brief with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to reconsider a case that fundamentally altered the jurisprudence of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

“Regent University is continuously advancing the level of mentorship, scholarship, and preparation for our students. The Robertson Center for Constitutional Law is one more step toward that end,” said Dr. Gerson Moreno-Riano, executive vice president for Academic Affairs. “It is fitting that the center bears the name of Dr. Robertson, who has dedicated so much of his life to defending the constitutional principles under which this nation has flourished.”

For more information, visit https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/

###

Regent Law’s more than 3,300 graduates practice law in 49 states and over 20 countries and include 38 currently sitting judges. The School of Law currently ranks in the top 25 percent of all law schools for obtaining judicial clerkships and ranked 20^th in the nation for Ultimate Bar Passage in 2019. The school offers the Juris Doctor (J.D.) in three-year and part-time formats, an online M.A. in Law, an online M.A. in Financial Planning & Law, an on-campus and online LL.M. in Human Rights and an on-campus and online LL.M. in American Legal Studies.

Founded in 1978, Regent University has nearly 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Va., and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from a Christian perspective in 135+ program areas including business, communication, the arts, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Currently, Regent University is ranked among top national universities by U.S. News & World Report and is one of only 23 universities nationally to receive an “A” rating for its comprehensive liberal arts core curriculum.

The post Regent University School of Law Unveils Robertson Center for Constitutional Law appeared first on Robertson Center for Constitutional Law.