So first, Jim, can you give us a brief synopsis of this case and what's at stake?

Yeah, this is a really important religious liberty case before the Supreme Court this term.

This case is all about whether the government can create a program and say that it's providing funding for private education, but refuse to give it to religious schools.

And so over the last three years, the Supreme Court has decided lots of cases like these.

And it keeps saying over and over again that you can't exclude the religious groups and the religious schools and the religious families when you create programs like this.

But what Colorado is trying to do with its universal preschool program is trying to come up with a new way of excluding the religious organizations.

And so the Supreme Court has to decide, is it going to allow Colorado to do that? Or is it going to hold Colorado to what it said in these last decisions and require that these programs be open to people of faith?

What are your strongest takeaways from oral arguments?

But how often or have we seen when children are taken away from parents who, you know, who don't support a transition?

That's certainly something that we've seen.

As you said, it's hard to figure out exactly how prevalent that is in terms of parents losing custody or parents at least temporarily losing custody.

But we do know that it has happened.

We have talked to families and parents that have contacted us seeking legal help.

And so we know it's an issue and we know it's something that just really highlights the the problems with these secret social transition policies because these policies drive a wedge between parents and their kids instead of including the parents and letting them know about the struggles that their kids are having so that they can be helpful in the process.

they're excluded and that creates this wedge between families.

I know that we've seen bans in certain states, but kind of take us through the legal angles of that fight as well.

Um, but how often or have we seen when children are taken away from parents, um, who, you know, who don't support a transition?

Th-That's certainly something that we've seen.

A-as you said, it's, it's, it's hard to figure out exactly how prevalent that is, um, in terms of parents losing custody or parents at least temporarily losing custody.

Um, but we do know that it has happened.

We have talked to, to families and parents that have contacted us seeking legal help, uh, and so we know it's an issue.

And we know it's something that just really highlights the problems with these secret social transition policies, because these policies drive a wedge between parents and their kids.

Instead of including the parents and letting them know about the struggles that their kids are having so that they can be hel-helpful in the process, they're excluded, and that creates this wedge between families.

I know that we've seen bans in certain states, um, but kind of take us through the legal angles of that fight as well.

So can you fill us in on the major details of this new lawsuit?

Yeah.

Over ten Catholic organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, have filed a challenge to New York's law requiring medical professionals to inform patients about the option of physician-assisted suicide.

These Catholic groups exist to protect life and to care for people, not to take it, and they've been doing that work for over a hundred and twenty-five years, but this law forces them to violate their faith.

Thankfully, our friends at Becket are representing these Catholic groups, defending their right to care for the vulnerable without offering the option of taking their own lives.

What makes New York's law worth challenging now?

New York actually requires religious care providers to inform patients that assisted suicide is an option.

Now, New York's law has some exemptions, but they're so limited they don't even apply to these Catholic organizations.

But do you know how they took this decision?

They're ecstatic.

Like all the clients we represent, we represent two female athletes in Idaho that intervened in that case to help defend that law, and we represent another female athlete in West Virginia.

And all four of them, Adelia and the three others I just mentioned, are thrilled because for the first time in this journey, they were heard by a court.

For the first time in this journey, Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that spoke... beautifully about the plight that they face when they're forced to compete, they're forced to work as hard as they can to earn roster spots, to earn medals, to earn scholarships, and then they're unfortunately forced to play on an unequal playing field when some states were allowing boys and males to come in and compete against them.

So what is the next step? Do we fight those 23 states in the courts or do we need to get new legislation proposed? What happens now?

i think both we we have to do both so this is a clear call to legislators in those 23 states that you have the power to address these issues you have the power to pass laws that ensure women and girls have a safe and equal playing field so that's the first thing and the second thing is yes there are litigation avenues so we at alliance defending freedom we already have three pending cases one in Connecticut, one in Minnesota, and one in the state of Washington.

And in all of those cases, we're arguing that the federal law known as Title IX requires states to protect women's sports, and here's why.