andrew i chase the wandering dago food truck thinks he is the pontiff and vloses the holy church of nassau otb when the fsithful wish to pray. see eg ny const art 1 sec 3
fast is a dose of fentanyl to the great beyond
the beckett fund is on a mission of its own choosing
The Supreme Court Isn’t Anti-Muslim
It erred in denying a death-row inmate’s request for an imam—but not out of bias.
A lethal injection chamber at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Ala. PHOTO: DAVE MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Alabama put Domineque Ray to death last week after the U.S. Supreme Court refused his petition to have an imam beside him as he died. State officials had denied that request because of security concerns. They said he could pray with the imam immediately before the execution, but only prison employees, including a Christian chaplain, were permitted to enter the chamber.
Ray, who raped and murdered a 15-year-old girl in 1995, filed an 11th-hour lawsuit on Jan. 28 claiming religious discrimination. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to delay the execution, but the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to let it proceed. Ray was executed while his imam watched from another room.
The outcome is unfortunate and unjust. Religious freedom is a basic human right, including for prisoners. Alabama offered no concrete evidence of any security issues related to having an imam inside the room where Ray was executed. The state surely could have made an accommodation, and refusing to do so under the circumstances seems unnecessarily cruel.
But accusations that the Supreme Court’s decision reflects anti-Muslim bias are also mistaken. The justices didn’t reject the prisoner’s claim on the merits; instead, they said his claim came too late. Legally, that distinction is important because it means the decision creates no new precedent for religious-freedom cases.
In 2015 the Becket Fund represented a Muslim prisoner who wanted to grow a half-inch beard. The Supreme Court handed him a unanimous religious-freedom victory. That same year the court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a hijab while working for Abercrombie & Fitch .
There’s no reason to believe the ruling in the death-row case was driven by anti-Muslim bias. It would be just as unreasonable to conclude that certain justices are anti-Christian because of their votes against a Christian business owner Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014). The better explanation is that Ray’s case reflects a continuing debate about the death penalty and, specifically, how active the Supreme Court should be when there are disputes at the 11th hour.
A similar debate also explains the court’s recent ruling on the Trump administration’s travel ban. That ruling doesn’t reflect anti-Muslim bias either. It reflects instead debate over how much deference to give the executive branch in immigration cases. These explanations aren’t as sexy as accusations of bias, but they better account for what’s actually happening.
None of this excuses the outcome in Ray’s case, which is regrettable. There are strong arguments that the prisoner’s claim should have been treated as timely. And Alabama should have found a way to let him be with his spiritual adviser as he died. But not every decision we disagree with is a reflection of unacceptable bias.
Mr. Goodrich is vice president at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
