What Southern Baptists should know about the judicial branch

This episode discussing what Southern Baptists should know about the judicial branch continues our series of the ERLC in D.C. Welcome to The ERLC Podcast where our goal is to help you think biblically about today’s cultural issues. Today, we’re continuing our series focused on the work we do in Washington, D.C.

The ERLC’s presence in our nation’s capital allows us to speak up, for, and from our Southern Baptist churches before various audiences, including our federal government leaders.

The ERLC’s presence in our nation’s capital allows us to speak up, for, and from our Southern Baptist churches before various audiences, including our federal government leaders. In our last episode, we learned about how the ERLC interacts with the executive branch. Today, we’ll turn our attention to the judicial branch of government and learn about the importance of advocating for the fundamental rights and liberties that are so important to Southern Baptists. 

To help us better understand this branch, why we should care about it, and how organization like the ERLC interact with the courts are Lathan Watts and Palmer Williams. 

Lathan Watts serves as vice president of public affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom. Watts represents ADF at external events, conferences, press conferences, and in the media. Prior to joining ADF, Watts spent nearly 20 years in various roles within the political, public policy, and non-profit sectors. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Mississippi and his Bachelor of Arts in history from Harding University.

Palmer Williams is general counsel for the ERLC. She specializes in legal and policy analysis related to international human rights, sanctity of life, and government affairs. As a licensed attorney specializing in international law, she has extensive experience advocating for human rights on the international stage, including at the United Nations. She earned her Juris Doctor from Vanderbilt Law School and her B.A. in Political Science and Community Development from Vanderbilt University.

Episode Transcript: What Southern Baptists should know about the judicial branch

Lindsay Nicolet:

Welcome to the ERLC podcast where our goal is to help you think biblically about today’s cultural issues. I’m Lindsay Nicolai, and today we’re continuing our series focused on the work we do in Washington, D.C.

The ERLC’s presence in our nation’s capital allows us to speak up for and from our Southern Baptist churches before various audiences including our federal government leaders. In our last episode, we learned about how the ERLC interacts with the executive branch. Today we’ll turn our attention to the judicial branch of government and learn about the importance of advocating for the fundamental rights and liberties that are so important to Southern Baptist to help us better understand this branch, why we should care about it, and how organizations like the ERLC interact with the courts are Lathan Watts and Palmer Williams.

Lathan Watts serves as vice president of Public Affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom. Watts represents ADF at external events, conferences, press conferences and in the media. Prior to joining ADF Watts spent nearly 20 years in various roles within the political, public policy and nonprofit sectors. He earned his juris doctor from the University of Mississippi and his Bachelor of Arts and history from Harding University.

Palmer Williams is general counsel for the ERLC. She specializes in legal and policy analysis related to international human rights, sanctity of life, and government affairs. As a licensed attorney specializing in international law, she has extensive experience advocating for human rights on the international stage, including at the United Nations. She earned her Juris doctor from Vanderbilt Law School and her BA in Political Science and Community Development from Vanderbilt University. Now let’s turn to Elizabeth Bristow’s conversation with Lathan Watts and Palmer Williams.

Elizabeth Bristow:

To kick us off, why do you think Christians should care about what goes on in the judicial branch, whether it’s at the Supreme Court level or even in the lower federal courts?

Lathan Watts:

Certainly. Uh, thanks for having me. You know, the apostle Paul said that we should pray for those in authority so that we could lead quiet and peaceful lives. And so for any branch of government, I think that’s part of why Christians should care about what’s going on in government. The apostle Paul was a Roman citizen and multiple times in Acts we see him use his Roman citizenship, his rights as a Roman citizen to protect himself and also to advance the cause of the gospel. One of my favorites is when he was about to be flogged and he waits until they strap him down and then turns to the soldier and says, is it lawful for you to flog a Roman citizen without a trial? And so he protected himself physically with his rights as a Roman citizen. Another time he’d been thrown in jail, they came to let him out and told him to go on his way quietly.

His response was, they beat us and put us in prison without a trial and we are Roman citizens and now they want us to go away quietly. Certainly not let them come down here and escort us out. And then how did he end up in Rome? Festus said, “You appeal to Caesar. To Caesar, you will go.” That was his right as a Roman citizen. And I think Paul would marvel at the protection that Christians in America in the 21st century have of our rights. And I think it’s important to note that our constitution is not the source of our rights. Our rights are endowed to us by our creator as image bearers of God. The Constitution is the protection of those rights. And so I do think it’s important for Christians. You know, you don’t have to be a lawyer, you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar, but to keep track with what is going on in the courts.

Because at the Supreme Court and even the lower courts, which we’ll probably talk about a little bit here shortly, that’s where the theory of the constitutional protections meet the reality of everyday life. You know, our clients are real people and these cases, you know, they go on for years sometimes if it makes it all the way to the, to the United States Supreme Court. And that’s where the court is going to apply those protections to the facts that go on in everyday life. And so it’s extremely important. The parable of the talents tells us we’ll be held accountable for what we did with the blessings God gave us. And the servant that hid his master’s money and then gave it all back. When the master came back, you know, he didn’t lose anything that his master entrusted him with. He gave it all back and he was called wicked and lazy ’cause he didn’t take what his master had given him and do something with it and multiply its impact.

And so it’s not enough for us just to keep from losing the protections of these rights that we have. We have to put those rights into practice and therefore multiply their impact. And that includes sometimes particularly with religious liberty or free speech, the government interfering with Christians just trying to live out their beliefs on a daily basis. And sometimes that means those folks are gonna have to go to court. And we are blessed with an entire branch of government that exists as a venue for people to come to when they think one of those other two branches of government is impeding their ability to live according to their beliefs. And so it’s a tremendous blessing and it’s one that we shouldn’t take for granted. And we should again, you know, pray for those in authority, wisdom for the justices, for all the judges in the judiciary as well as our legislators and those in Executive branch.

Palmer Williams:

I think oftentimes when we hear the news talking about these big Supreme Court cases, we forget about what’s happening on the lower circuit court level or even within our own states as cases are making their way through. But really the judiciary branch is designed to uphold and protect the law. So we are fortunate as a country to have a really strong rule of law, which means the laws on our books generally are enforced. A lot of our neighbors around the world do not have that luxury. So within the U.S. I think we have a very strong rule of law, but that also means we have a really strong judiciary. So the courts have a lot of power to enforce the laws that are passed by the legislature and even executive orders that are passed by governors and the President. But that also means that a lot happens within the court system. And a lot of those really deeply held fundamental rights and liberties that we know are so near and dear to Southern Baptist and to people of faith that we have to pay attention to what’s happening at the courts because they’re ultimately deciding are those things that are enshrined in our laws, but also in our constitution, are they upheld and do we continue to have the freedoms that come with a robust rule of law in our country.

Elizabeth Bristow:

So tell us a little bit more about how does a case go from these lower courts all the way up to the Supreme Court? What does that process look like? And then give our listeners a very clear understanding of the process of how cases go before the Supreme Court and they’re subsequently decided upon.

Lathan Watts:

So for a case to end up at the United States Supreme Court, you have in the federal court system, you have three levels of courts. You have the federal district courts, and that’s basically your trial court level. They’re gonna deal with any issue related to federal law, any issue related to U.S. constitutional rights. And so depending on where the parties in that litigation are, that determines which district court you’ll file the case in. So for example, I live in the Dallas area. If I was involved in a case there, it would be in the Northern District Court, federal District Court of Texas. After that case has been heard at the federal district court level, either side, you know, the side that loses has the right to appeal. And that’s the second level of courts and those are the US courts of appeal. And those are geographic.

There’s one specifically for DC and then the others cover geographic locations. For example, Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. So once you go to the Court of appeals, you argue your case there and you get a random draw of three judges from that court who will hear your case and that panel will issue a decision in your case. Now, once that decision comes out, the side that loses has the right to ask for the entire court to hear that case again. It’s called an appeal on Bon, where you’re asking the entire, in my case, would be the Fifth Circuit, the entire Fifth Circuit to hear the case again because you disagree with the panel’s decision and if you can persuade a majority of the entire court, they can overturn that panel’s initial decision. Those aren’t extremely common, but they’re not rare either.

And then once a final decision from a U.S. Court of Appeals is issued the party that lost, that can appeal to the United States Supreme Court, it’s important to remember that at the United States Supreme Court they choose which cases they’re going to hear and there’s no really no such thing as a typical year in the the life the states Supreme Court. You can look at the numbers and you know, year after year it’s usually between maybe five to 6,000 cases get appealed to the United States Supreme Court and they might hear 50 or 60 of them. So it’s really only about 1% of the cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court decides to take. They do that every week that they’re in session. There’s a designated day where they have a conference period, there’ll be a list of cases that they’re gonna discuss and the nine justices and only the nine justices are in the room when they discuss these cases.

So no clerks, no staff legal nerd like me would, would probably pay a lot to be a fly on the wall in that room just one time to hear how those discussions go. But they discuss those cases and then they take a vote as to whether or not to hear the case or not. And if four justices vote in favor of hearing the case, then a writ is issued called uh, a writ of certiori usually cert for short. So if cert is granted, then that case goes on the list and will be scheduled for an oral argument at the United States Supreme Court. If less than four vote in favor to hear it, then it goes on the cert denied list and that basically leaves the lower court’s decision in place. So once a case has been granted cert, then a date is scheduled for oral argument and prior to oral argument, both sides of the case will file written briefs making their arguments to the court.

And then on the day of oral argument, they will present their arguments in person to the court and face usually very pointed questions from the court about their case. Once the oral argument is over, the justices will then schedule a time to meet and they’ll take an initial vote as to which argument they felt won. The case takes five justices obviously in in a nine member court, five justices to be in the majority. And once they’ve taken that vote, five justices or let’s you know, let’s say it’s five or six justices agree. So it, you know, it’s looking like a six three decision. If the chief justice is in the majority, then he can write the majority opinion himself or he can assign it to one of the other justices in the majority to write the majority opinion. So that justice will start on a draft opinion. It’s usually circulated amongst the majority. They get feedback until they come up with what is the final majority opinion. The dissenters do the same and those opinions are then published and the majority opinion becomes the binding law on that issue.

Elizabeth Bristow:

Well you just broke that down really well for people like me that are not legal nerds, um, to really understand the process and how a case goes from these district courts all the way to the Supreme Court. And I also did not realize that there were so many that went every year. So for your case to be chosen is truly like a 1% chance.

Lathan Watts:

Yeah, it’s almost a win in and of itself when you get the court to hear your case, right? They have identified your case as a issue. Now obviously we prefer to win, uh, but , you know, sometimes it doesn’t go your way but you get a really well worded dissent in a case and then cases come after that case and you can cite to that dissent and hopefully clarify that ruling or narrow that ruling or you know, lead up to maybe another case that gives the court an opportunity to overturn that ruling. I mean it took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade, but along the way, you know, there were dissents in Roe v. Wade, there were dissents in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there were dissents in other life related cases and eventually we got that decision overturned as well.

Elizabeth Bristow:

So you mentioned it, but let’s talk a little bit more in depth about the purpose and tangible effects of amicus briefs. And I know at the ERLC we submit a lot of those, we actually have even authored a lot of briefs in cases this year. So what is the purpose of those being submitted to the court even a step further? A lot of times they’re like a joint effort where you get a lot of organizations to sign on. What’s the value there?

Lathan Watts:

Sure, the Latin term is Amicus Cure Act, which means friend of the court. So an amicus brief, let’s say the case is Smith v. Jones. An amicus brief is not on behalf of either Smith or Jones. It is somebody who’s not a party to the case or as you mentioned, sometimes a collection of groups of people who have an interest in the case. In other words, they think even though they’re not a party in the litigation, they’re not Mr. Smith, they’re not Ms. Jones, but they think how this case is decided is going to impact us. And so they want to, as a friend of the court, inform the court of that and probably inform the court, you know, aspects of the case that could impact them arguments that they want the court to consider on their behalf. They may read the briefs that the parties have filed and they may, there may be an issue that they don’t think the briefs that the parties have filed has addressed.

And so they might file an amicus brief which addresses that issue and ask the court to consider that as well. But you can also file amicus briefs at the point in the case before the justices have voted to hear the case. So when it’s still in conference, sometimes people will file a friend of the court brief encouraging them to take the case. This case is going to impact folks like me, not just the parties to this case for these reasons. We would like you to hear this case. And when a case is at that conference stage where they’re still deciding whether or not to hear it, the number of uh, amicus briefs can sometimes influence, you know, the decision as whether or not to hear it. If there’s a case that’s got, you know, just a ton of amicus briefs from, and especially if they’re from a very wide array of people sometimes on very opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but they agree on one aspect of this that can make a case very interesting to the court. And so that can sometimes aid in the decision to vote to hear the case. And then again you can file for another the court briefs once the case has been granted served to, you know, draw attention to certain arguments or certain impacts of the case that you want the court to consider that is maybe not reflected in the briefs filed by the parties or maybe in support of arguments filed by the parties in the case.

Palmer Williams:

That’s one of the main ways that the ERLC really gets to participate in the process of cases that we care about, on issues that we care about as it goes through the various stages within the court. This judicial stage, as I said earlier, is so critical to maintaining this rule of law and ensuring that those things that we care so much about life, liberty, making sure we can practice our religion, all of those core things that are so important to Southern Baptist, this is the stage in which we get to have our say so for example, uh, the ERLC just wrote our own brief in concert with a Tennessee Baptist in a case called U.S. v. Skrmetti. And this was a lawsuit that the Biden administration joined against a Tennessee law that prohibited all medical procedures attended to affirm a gender inconsistent with a minor’s biological sex.

So any sort of transitioning surgeries or medical procedures, the law was saying not for kids, we’re not gonna allow it. And so the ERLC joined this brief on behalf of Tennessee with the Tennessee Baptist to say Southern Baptist explicitly expressed within resolutions on the SBC floor condemning the harmful and irreversible gender transition experiments on vulnerable minors and young adults. That was a resolution from 2023 I think, on opposing gender transitions. So because the SBC has passed that resolution, the ERLC acts out of that resolution and says, okay, we know that this is where SBC members stand and we’re gonna make sure the court knows that too. And so in this case we wrote a brief describing the good design that God made for genders and why it’s so important and why it’s so harmful to promote anything otherwise for, especially for kiddos. And so it was really neat to get to partner with a Tennessee Baptist because this was a Tennessee law and really go hand in hand with them to say to the court, this is something that’s really important and let us help you think through how our faith informs how we think about this law.

Elizabeth Bristow:

Palmer, this question is for you. There seems to be a growing momentum building against attempts to impose radical gender ideology on the federal level. How can Christians and Christian organizations capitalize on this momentum, particularly in the judicial sphere?

Palmer Williams:

You know, I think there’s two things, and I’ll start out with this. We always, in every single brief comment, anytime that we are speaking on any of these issues, we first affirm the Imago Day in every person, right? Every single person is made in the image of God and thus because of that are valuable and precious in the sight of the Lord. And that applies to the child with down syndrome that applies to the child that has gender dysphoria and has transitioned. And so first and foremost, I think it is so critical that people of faith speak out of that place of deep love and treasure for all God’s children. And I say that because I think often in this space, because it is such a cultural flashpoint and also such a tragic thing that’s happening, we can often speak out of our anger and frustration, but ultimately we have to engage in a way in which the other side can really see our motivations and maybe they’ll back them down.

But I think it’s really important that we start out by speaking out of deep love and even sadness for what the struggle of especially these children, but anyone who is dealing with these gender dysphoric issues. I think when it comes to capitalizing on this momentum, I think that there’s so many cases that are gonna be coming up. U.S. v. Skrmetti is one of them. There are countless, countless agency regulations. So we know that we have federal statute, but then we also have all of these agency regulations, which are all of the executive branch departments like Department of Education, department of Homeland Security Department of HHS that then say, okay, here’s the law that was passed down to us. How are we gonna execute this? And they develop rules and regulations. That body of law is massive. It’s huge. And in the Biden administration we saw this massive enshrinement of these really radical ideologies into a lot of these regs.

Palmer Williams:

We spent the last five to six years fighting against those and, and trying to roll back some of the really radical regs that were passed. I think we have an opportunity to lean in and ask the current administration to continue to roll those back in pretty dramatic fashion and say, um, we are not going to especially have prejudice against people of faith who don’t agree with these ideologies. We’re also not gonna promote them in our schools or in our community. Um, but instead we’re going to help those that are suffering get the help that they need.

Elizabeth Bristow:

Let’s turn our attention to some cases that are currently at the Supreme Court level this year. So some of which oral arguments have occurred, some were waiting for those to be scheduled. What do you see as some of the most important cases for Christians to be attentive to this term and even following this term?

Lathan Watts:

Well, you know, at Alliance Defending Freedom, we exist to protect the God given rights, speak and live the truth. And one of the issues I think that is front and center in our culture today when it comes to speaking the truth and living the truth is the issue of transgender ideology. One case that’s already been argued, we were honored to assist the attorney general in Tennessee in that case. And so we’re waiting now for, uh, the opinion to come out in that and that will have a, a nationwide impact if the state of Tennessee wins that case and defends, you know, the right of the policymakers in Tennessee to make policy on this issue and not have it overturned by the courts. A case that has been granted but uh, has not yet been argued is, uh, Medina v. Planned Parenthood. And in this case, the state of South Carolina made the policy decision that state Medicaid funds would not go to Planned Parenthood.

So they basically, they disqualified Planned Parenthood as a healthcare provider for the state’s Medicaid funds, planned Parenthood sued and the district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals agreed with Planned Parenthood that they could force the state to reverse its policy decision and fund Planned Parenthood. So we, uh, again, privileged to assist the state of South Carolina in this case. And that will be argued, I believe, here in within like the next month or so. And again, this case really is about states and their ability to make policy and not have it overturned in the courts. You know, there are multiple states that either have or would like to make sure that those Medicaid funds do not go to Planned Parenthood in this case will decide whether or not they’ll have that ability. There are a couple of other cases that are pending right now that we don’t have a decision on, um, cert grant yet.

And then, uh, one other that we’re waiting to hear if the court will hear it or not is Chiles v. Salazar in Colorado. Colorado enacted a law that is basically a counseling censorship law in Colorado. If a counselor has a client who let’s say is struggling with gender identity and wants to become more comfortable with their actual biological reality, the law in Colorado says the only acceptable counseling is to counsel that person to transition. And so, you know, counselors there risk losing their license if they provide any other kind of counseling. And that is government invading really one of the most sacred spaces you can imagine. I mean the relationship between a counselor and patient and it is banning a certain type of speech. So we’re hopeful again, the court will take that case and, um, correct the state of Colorado once again. When it comes to free speech issues, uh, the state of Colorado has kept us very busy. Some of our other cases, 303 creative, one of the best free speech decisions probably in the last 30, 40 years came outta Colorado and, and probably our most famous client, Jack Phillips Masterpiece cake shop also in Colorado. So Colorado keeps us busy.

Palmer Williams:

There’s so many that we’re following and that we’ve engaged with, but I thought I’d picked three that kind of encapsulate several of the areas that we care about. So the first is U.S. v. Skrmetti, which I told you earlier, is a law in Tennessee that prohibited medical transitions of minors and was challenged by among others, the Biden administration. And so that case is gonna be really crucial to say, are states allowed to tell doctors that they can’t mutilate children’s bodies that children have not fully developed, they can’t make those decisions, unchangeable, irreversible decisions. So that one’s gonna be really crucial and I’m very interested to see what happens. I think that the Tennessee attorney general’s office did a great job in arguing that and I’m really hopeful that we will have protections for kiddos. The second case that comes to mind is Free Speech v. Paxton.

And this is a case that will determine if a Texas state law that protects children from being exposed to pornography can be upheld. So basically there was a law that said, Hey, we’re gonna require pornographic sites to have an age verification, you have to prove that you are of age in order to access the site. Seems pretty basic and we’ve had lots of precedent saying we wanna protect kids from obscene material, but we actually, this is an interesting case. We actually have free speech advocates, which on the other side saying, Hey, no, this is actually a free speech area. We are saying actually we love free speech, we are free speech advocates. However, there’s a limit on that. And when children are accessing obscene material and their brains are forever being altered because of this, we have science that proves it. The state is allowed to step in and in a very narrowly tailored way to say, Hey, you just gotta show us your id.

You have to be an adult. And so I’ll be interested to see and really hopeful that children will be protected in that case. The last one is actually one I was working on this morning is the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case. We will be joining a brief with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and also the Charlotte Lozier Institute. So two great pro-life groups that ERLC is joining with them to submit an amicus brief in a case about Planned Parenthood funding in South Carolina. And so what South Carolina has said was that Planned Parenthoods are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding as part of their Medicaid program, but a federal district court has forced the state to restore Planned Parenthood’s funding. So ultimately that case is asking can a state restrict federal funding that flows through them based on abortion providers? And in the brief, we’ve talked about what Planned Parenthood really does, what their services actually are.

Almost a hundred percent of what they’re doing is, um, based around abortion care. And instead we’ve highlighted what pregnancy resource centers across the country have done what they are doing as far as providing care and love and support for mom and baby and really highlighting there are other options out there. It’s okay if South Carolina has decided abortion providers are not actually helping the women and children in their community and they’re gonna funnel the money to places that are. So that case I think is really critical to our pro-life agenda. And I’m really hopeful that the court will rule as they have been doing in the past couple years to protect the state’s rights to choose what their abortion laws look like.

Elizabeth Bristow:

To close us out. How can Christians that may not be involved, like you and I are in our work sphere with these types of cases, but want to just keep up and be aware, how can they be more involved? What’s kind of the call to action for Christians? Well,

Lathan Watts:

I think the best thing that any Christian can do is pray and so pray for the clients in these cases because it’s extremely trying to be the subject of one of these cases. No one wakes up wanting to become a client of Alliance Defending freedom. These cases, especially if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, can take years and that can take quite a toll on family. It does not take, in our case, a financial toll on them because we don’t bill our clients. We are a 501 c3 and we raise money to fund the litigation, to keep all of us that work for ADF paid and working. So if people wanna support our work, that enables us, you know, to take as many cases as we can. Unfortunately, we cannot take all of the cases that come our way ’cause we get thousands of requests for help every year at any time during the year.

We probably have between two and 300 cases in active litigation at all levels, you know, in, in state and federal court. So I would say pray for the, for the people that are involved, pray for the attorneys that are involved, for the organizations that do this kind of work, pray for the judges that God will give them wisdom and humility and guidance to make the right decisions and support the organizations that do this work. We can’t do it without the support of people. And if they wanna stay, you know, updated and informed on these issues and, and a lot of the other things we have going on at ADF, they can always go to our website, adf legal.org and you can find a wealth of information there on current cases. Things that we’re doing also in the public policy sphere, you know, because we advocate for the right to live and speak the truth in law, in public policy and in the public square.

I consider this the public square. And I said before, you don’t have to be a lawyer, you don’t have to be a constitutional scholar, but you do need to know enough about what your rights are in order to know when they’re being violated. And you need to know that there are people like those of us at ADF who will stand with you. If you must take a stand, you will not stand alone. So I think praying for all those involved, staying informed, and uh, supporting organizations that do this work are all great ways that Christians can participate.

Palmer Williams:

I know oftentimes that when we hear about a big Supreme Court case or something that’s happening in our local communities at our state court level, it can feel really overwhelming to be able to understand what’s actually happening, what are the actual legal issues at hand, especially if this isn’t something that you’re steeped in day to day. I would encourage you to go to lc.com and read our explainers on these issues. Every case that we’re engaging with, every case that is important to the issues that Southern Baptists have said, and resolutions are important to them, we are engaging on it and we create content to help our pastors and our lay members to understand the issue, understand what and how Southern Baptists are engaging on these issues, and even how you can advocate within your own community. So anytime you are confused about an issue or want to know how we are engaging, you can always find an explainer on our website.

Lindsay Nicolet:

First Peter 2:13-17 encourages us to submit to authority, love the brotherhood, fear God, and honor the emperor. While we seek to honor our nation’s leaders, we must also hold them accountable to truth and work to either prevent or stop our rights from being trampled. Though it can be difficult in our nation, we’re blessed with the ability to do this through our court system as we stand for the truth of God’s word in this arena, may God grant us favor so that we can continue to fulfill the great commission and live in such a way that honors the governing authorities instituted by God. Thanks for listening to this episode of The ERLC Podcast. Join us next time as we continue our series focused on our work in Washington, D.C.