Military Chaplain Updates

Military chaplains are a usual example of when we can have government support of religion.* 

Granting that, religion, especially mixed with government, remains a sensitive subject. The streamlining of "faith codes" underlines the point with controversy from various quarters. 

The so-called Department of War [still not a thing] posted on Twitter (blah) the general goal:

In order to clarify the work of chaplains and simplify the work of commanders, the Pentagon has consolidated and simplified the list to roughly thirty codes — using the previously used labels for faiths.

The Pentagon’s job is not to adjudicate theological debates, but instead to ensure sincerely-held faith is respected and encouraged in our ranks.

I'm not sure if its job is to "encourage" faith, sincerely-held or not, either. But, okay, let's go with that.

There was a major hiccup when Mormons were not labeled "Christians." Many Republicans (and Trump supporters) are Mormons. That caused a flare-up.

The new codes did not designate specific Christian denominations as such. Catholics were just "Catholics," not "Catholics (Christian)."

People were still upset that many other religions were left out. We just have a catchall "Other Religions" category.

Also, we have a single "Judaism" category, which includes multiple major groups, and a bunch of separate, relatively small (Church of the Nazarene?) Christian groups. 

Secretary of Defense Hegseth, who wears his specific Christian beliefs on his sleeve and promotes them in his official capacity, also made other changes. 

Hegseth has not earned much respect as someone to trust with such things.

Before the change, a chaplain’s uniform carried their rank insignia along with a symbol denoting their religion.

The policy, he said, “speaks to the difficult balance of the duality of a military chaplain. A chaplain is first and foremost a chaplain and an officer second. This change is a visual representation of that fact.”

Hegseth also said that removing rank allowed chaplains to “be seen among the highest ranks because of their divine calling.”

The person is a military chaplain. Rank is important to the military. They were seen as chaplains before. I'm unsure why this move is necessary. I would like to know how chaplains overall feel about it. 

The directive follows a broader effort by Hegseth to reshape the military’s Chaplain Corps. In a December message, he said he wanted to restore chaplains’ focus on ministry and argued that the role had shifted toward counseling and support functions in recent years.

What "ministry" entails depends on the person. For many, it would include "counseling and support functions." This seems like an idiosyncratic view of what the appropriate role of a chaplain is. Did he think the old way was too "woke"?

The good faith of this Administration, with its Christian Nationalism overtones, on this issue is already questionable. We can move on from that. The general issue is sensitive.

It is a good thing that it is getting some attention. Perhaps, more kinks will be worked out. 

==

Note: Religion is one of those subjects that will sometimes lead people to jump to first principles, including rejecting special rules for religions at all. Some will make some snide references.

So it goes. "Religion" is referenced in the First Amendment and is a general legal category, including in human rights law. It's a thing. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

The Order List was fifteen pages, which suggested there was some sort of opinion. And, there was another (it is her thing) Sotomayor statement flagging a criminal justice issue:

Although I agree with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari for the reason explained below, I write separately to address the problematic standard the Mississippi Supreme Court applied to the claim petitioner Tony Terrell Clark raised under Batson v. Kentucky [racial discrimination in peremptory challenges], 476 U. S. 79 (1986), in the context of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

Mark Joseph Stern also flags on Bluesky:

SCOTUS tosses out a 4th Circuit decision allowing compassionate release under the First Step Act when there are arbitrary sentencing disparities between a defendant and his co-conspirators. Orders reconsideration in light of Rutherford. KBJ and Sotomayor dissent.

This is a typical "GVR," where they "grant, vacate, remand" a case so that the lower court can apply a related opinion. Kagan dissented in Rutherford and joined the limited concurrence written by Sotomayor in the other case referenced in the GVR.

As Stern notes, it isn't fully clear what this means, but it is concerning since it appears to suggest the lower court should apply the (dubious) rulings even broader than necessary.  

Alito and Barrett didn't take part in cases without saying why. Only Kagan and Jackson consistently do so. I prefer that approach. 

One tidbit is that "The United States’ claims in this case are hereby dismissed with prejudice" in an interstate dispute. No reason provided. 

There will be opinions on Thursday. There is also an upcoming execution, which I will discuss separately. 

ETA: Amy Howe posted her summary.

One tidbit is the rare request for a reply to a request for a rehearing. The request is by Lisa Blatt,  superlawyer, and cites changing lower court precedent. Also, looking at the docket page, the Supreme Court posted a request earlier, but it was removed as a mistake. So, one big trivia question.

==

The error flagged here is not uncommon. 

I have repeatedly seen it assumed that the original First Amendment would require thousands of members. A case of not reading closely.

Checking, the House reached 200 members in the 1820s. The measure was bound to be out of date eventually. It was suitably not ratified as written. 

SCOTUS Watch: Opinions

An expected shadow docket decision in an election lawsuit makes it no less shitty. See here. 

Opinion day had three opinions, only one dissent (and concurrence) by Thomas. Some long-shot claims. Minimalist specials.

ETA: As noted here, one opinion might be another faux minimalist opinion with near unanimity obtained by a rule with future bite.

Indiana and Tennessee Declare June as Nuclear Family Month

I discuss the various problems with this here. I toss in a link to an amusing "drag comedy" that is also a satire of teenage films. 

Andrew Lukehart Execution

Andrew Lukehart, after previously being found guilty of child abuse, was sentenced to die by Florida for the death of a five-month-old child. He first made up a kidnapping story.

That was thirty years ago. Breyer explained why it is constitutionally and otherwise problematic to execute someone after all that time. Florida is making it a habit.

The first article suggests it is still somewhat unclear what exactly happened. Why did he murder the child? Child abuse, including lethal child abuse, arises for various reasons.

The crime is horrible, especially when you look at the picture of the child. The news article starts with a trigger warning. Still, thirty years in prison is a very serious punishment. 

The final appeal, rejected by the Supreme Court the day before without comment, was a standard red flag about Florida execution procedures. Old ground

It also added a novel argument that forcing him to choose an alternative means of execution (you must do so if you challenge the method) is a violation of his religious liberty. There is a federal statute protecting the religious liberty of prisoners. 

His execution doesn't provide much value, in my opinion, to the public welfare. Safeguarding children is precious. An arbitrary execution does little to advance it. 

Supreme Court Order List

Today's Order List was a bit long since the justices tossed back a death penalty case (7-2) because the lower court wrongly took into consideration evidence the jury didn't see. They granted a case first sought by a pro se prisoner. Also, the "bill of complaint" issue (two views) came up again. I basically agree with Michael Dorf. 

Judges Behaving Badly

A black woman judge, appointed by a Democrat, behaved badly. The judicial self-regulation left something to be desired. 

Liberals, who are not hypocrites overall on the issue, flagged the problem. Judicial ethics and proper congressional oversight should be bipartisan. It is a good campaign issue.