One of the more pointed legal challenges to the Trump administration’s approach to religious governance in America was quietly dismissed by a federal judge on a Monday in late July. U.S. District Judge John P. Cronan dismissed a lawsuit filed by an interfaith coalition that claimed President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission was essentially out of step with the nation’s religious diversity and was, in essence, stacked with conservative Christians.
Although the decision received little attention in the general news cycle, it was very significant to the parties involved. The plaintiffs, which included Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh organizations as well as the Interfaith Alliance, contended that advisory commissions must uphold a balance of opinions in accordance with federal law. On the surface, their stance wasn’t irrational. Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, the Rev. Franklin Graham, and New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan were among the commission’s members. The non-Christian representation was completed by one Orthodox Jewish rabbi. That represents a very small portion of religious life in America.
Judge Cronan, a Trump appointee in New York, acknowledged that the commission had a significant bias. However, he came to the conclusion that although the pertinent federal law mandates viewpoint balance, it is not clear how that balance must be attained.
He noted in his 49-page opinion that the commission comprised members of “at least five different religions,” a count that relied on differentiating between different Christian denominations rather than more general faith traditions, as well as individuals from a variety of backgrounds, including clergy and laypeople, a former television host, and a state official. Some readers might think the judge’s calculations are absurd. It is a generous interpretation to count Catholics and Baptists as distinct balancing forces.
Another issue is the commission’s June draft report, which called for “building bridges” between church and state and questioned the conventional wisdom on the subject. Opponents perceived that language as a subtle but purposeful reinterpretation of a tenet that has long characterized American civic life. Naturally, the commission’s supporters viewed it as a necessary adjustment. There is a significant difference between those two readings.
The Interfaith Alliance had contended that the commission was constructed not only around a specific religion but also around a specific legal philosophy that puts religious practice ahead of minority groups’ civil rights protections. Cronan challenged this logic as well, pointing out that the president was not obligated to appoint someone who disagreed with the founding principle because Trump’s executive order creating the commission expressly rejected any framing of religious liberty as being at odds with civil rights. It is a logical argument, but it raises a more general question: what happens if the premise is contested?
The Interfaith Alliance’s leader, the Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, responded to the decision in a straightforward manner. “Today’s dismissal wrongly ignored that the Commission privileges one narrow religious and ideological view,” he stated. The legal defeat doesn’t seem to be the end of the fight for his organization and the other plaintiffs. The coalition’s representative, Democracy Forward, pointed out that the lawsuit had already resulted in the publication of meeting materials and commission transcripts that the administration had allegedly been hesitant to make public.
As this case develops, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that the courtroom has always been merely one venue in a much broader debate over what “religious liberty” means in a nation where believers come from every imaginable tradition. Supporters of the commission think it is safeguarding something genuine. The interfaith organizations think it is safeguarding something much more limited than the name implies. The legal question has now been addressed by a judge. The deeper one, which is where religious freedom truly comes into play, is still obstinately open.
