How does this case differ from that? Why should Louisiana survive when it seems to be controlled by this Stone case?

Yeah.

And the Kentucky law was pretty much a mirror image of this one.

And so Stone v. Graham seems to be directly on point.

However, the establishment clause doctrine has changed recently.

So at the time Stone v. Graham was decided, the controlling doctrinal test was something known as the Lemon Test.

And the Lemon Test essentially requires that laws be secular.

Can you walk us through real quick how the Fifth Circuit has been handling this family of cases? Because within the circuit, there seems to be some inconsistency across cases which at least at first blush, you would think there shouldn't be this inconsistency within the

Caroline, to put this case into context, tell us about the Texas law and Supreme Court precedent.

The Texas law is pretty straightforward.

It basically required that in every single public school classroom, there had to be a Ten Commandments poster.

It had to be sufficiently large, easy to read, easy to see.

There couldn't be anything else around it, and they dictated the particular version of the Ten Commandments.

Now, it's not surprising that this mandatory scripture on the wall triggered an Establishment Clause violation.

The Establishment Clause, of course, is that part of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires some separation between church and state.

I mean, how do they possibly distinguish that case?

Caroline, tell us how the Fifth Circuit reached this decision.

So in order to understand the Fifth Circuit's decision, you first need to understand what the Texas law required and what the Supreme Court precedent was.

So the Texas law is pretty straightforward.

It basically required that in every single public school classroom, there had to be a Ten Commandments poster.

It had to be sufficiently large, easy to read, easy to see.

There couldn't be anything else around it, and they dictated the particular version of the Ten Commandments.

Now, it's not surprising that this mandatory scripture on the wall triggered an Establishment Clause violation.

I mean, how do they possibly distinguish that case?

She says the Court's six-three decision hinged on a concept called compelled speech.

The First Amendment protects both your right to speak, so it protects you against government censorship, but the free speech clause also protects your right not to speak, so it protects you against the government forcing you to say an ideological message that you disagree with, and that was what the problem was here.

When drivers choose a specialty plate, they pay a little extra, and those proceeds get split between their chosen group and the State Department of Motor Vehicles.

So, for example, in my family, we have a Save the Manatees license plate.

That's a specialty license plate that the state of Florida offers, that we paid extra money to purchase.

And what's the fundamental issue in the case?

So you have this law.

It says if you're licensed by the state, the state does not allow you to do things that are contrary to the standard of care.

And so you cannot provide conversion therapy.

And we have this white Christian woman who argues that the ban forbids her from providing the type of therapy that she wants to.

to practice.

She gets help from Alliance Defending Freedom.

Is this a novel issue coming to the court? Have they decided any similar cases?

Will you explain conversion therapy and Colorado's law?

As about half the states in the country have done, Colorado banned something that has been called gay conversion therapy.

It now probably also includes trans conversion therapy.

So it's just known as conversion therapy.

And it's the idea of trying to convince someone who is gay that they're not actually gay or trying to convince someone who is trans that they're not actually trans.

And this approach to gay and trans people has been proven to be very deleterious for their mental well-being.

And so states have forbidden it.

Is this a novel issue coming to the court? Have they decided any similar cases? The Supreme Court is not

Tell us about that case, the Yoder case, because Alito and Sotomayor disagreed about the interpretation of that case.

So the case he relied on was a case involving the Amish.

And the Amish challenged the law that required them to send their children to public school until they turned 16.

And the Amish argued this is contrary to our religious beliefs for two reasons.

First, it exposes our child to worldly education and values, which we disapprove.

And in addition, it's going to undermine the continuing vitality of our Amish culture if we cannot teach them.

how to be Amish in the community.

than that, there really

Caroline, tell us about the background of this case.

Basically, Oklahoma has a charter school program, as do most states, as a matter of fact.

It's supposed to be another alternative to regular public schools.

And the school board charged with approving charter schools approved a Catholic charter school.

A Catholic charter school would violate the Oklahoma Constitution.

And so the attorney general challenged that.

on the grounds that it violated two separate provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution, because the Oklahoma Constitution makes it very clear that taxpayer money cannot be used to fund religious proselytization and indoctrination.

How did the conservatives answer the liberal justices' questions about the establishment clause and how a taxpayer-funded school would entangle church and state?

And then Justice Alito actually read from the book saying there was a clear moral message.

His argument was...

this book not only articulates that these people exist, but it also conveys the message that these people are people and they're okay.

And there's nothing wrong with two men marrying each other.

And that is what he equates to indoctrination of children in the classroom, which of course, is not the only way to think about what those books are doing.

One of the central goals of the public school system is to train children to live in a democracy.

And one of the preconditions for us all coexisting together is that we learn that we're not all alike and that even if there are people who are different from us, we should still treat them with dignity and humanity and accord them the same respect that we ourselves would like to receive.

presented by this

And then Justice Alito actually read from the book saying there was a clear moral message.

His argument was this book not only articulates that these people exist, but it also conveys the message that these people are people, and they're okay, and there's nothing wrong with two men marrying each other.

And that is what he equates to indoctrination of children in the classroom, which of course is not the only way to think about what those books are doing.

One of the central goals of the public school system is to train children to live in a democracy.

And one of the preconditions for us all coexisting together is that we learn that we're not all alike and that even if there are people who are different from us, we should still treat them with dignity and humanity.

and accord them the same respect that we ourselves would like to receive.

And so I think the reason the school included these books in the first place is to try and teach that very basic civic lesson to little kids.

So what is the question that the Supreme Court is going to answer?

So what does the counselor's speech claim turn on?

The legal question turns on whether you think of counseling as as conduct, the practice of medicine, or you think of counseling as pure speech.

And this matters because the government has a lot more leeway to regulate the practice of medicine, even if it incidentally affects speech, than it does regulating speech.

Generally, presumption is that if the government is regulating speech because of its content or viewpoint, if it's trying to tell people what they are allowed or not allowed to say, that kind of content regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.

Generally, we don't want the government deciding what we're allowed to say or what we're allowed to hear.

So if this is considered a regulation of speech, then it is problematic under the free speech clause.

It's not automatically unconstitutional.

Okay, here's

conversion therapy

is that it is unscientific, harmful, and futile.

So all the reputable medical associations have come out against it for two reasons.

One, you can't change someone's sexual orientation.

And second, studies show that it actually hurts kids.

So for example, one study found that even holding constant other valuables, the children who have been subjected to this therapy are twice as likely to to think about suicide, and at least twice as likely to try suicide.

So states who have a long history of regulating the medical profession and ensuring that practices conform with standards of care decided this is not a practice we should allow in our state.

how does the counselor say it violates her free speech rights

is

deeply rooted in our history, whether there's a long-standing tradition of a particular practice, is how you define the practice.

Defining the practice is really key.

And the state of Louisiana is trying to define the practice as any appearance of the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Although the more accurate is, is there a long history? Is there a practice of posting Ten Commandment posters in public schools.

And that matters.

That matters because the Supreme Court has never completely banned the Bible or the Ten Commandments from public schools.

I mean, again,