BREAKING: Two Major Decisions From the Supreme Court

Today on Sekulow, two major decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court, one on voting rules in Arizona, the second on the freedom of association. We'll talk about that today on Sekulow.

We're in the most popular part of pop culture right now. So this was an interesting case because it brought together groups like the ACLU and the Heritage Foundation on the left and the right saying, no, we don't think that groups should be forced to give up the names of people who have donated to these political causes or groups. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110. There are a couple of provisions that were passed by Arizona as a state law regarding their elections. One of them is this out of precinct idea that if you show up and you cast your ballot at a precinct that is not the correct one you are assigned to, you can cast a provisional ballot. But if they eventually figure out that wasn't the right precinct, they will throw out the ballot altogether.

The second one was ballot harvesting, whether 30 parties can bring in ballots from people other than those who actually cast them. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls too, your comments, your questions. 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. Two major decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. First, I want to go to this decision on voting because I think this is very important because we discussed the Georgia law that has been challenged by the Department of Justice. Last week they filed the lawsuit. They said they would be filing the lawsuit.

They announced it on Friday. We addressed it this week earlier in the week on the broadcast to kind of go through the Georgia law. Well, two provisions of this Arizona law were upheld as constitutional, 6-3. This is very important because two of the provisions that were at issue here in Arizona were, one, a limit on ballot harvesting.

So basically in Arizona, only family members, close relatives, caregivers can go and turn in your ballot. And the Supreme Court said that is okay. That does not violate, and this is key as well, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which is where the challenge was brought last week by the DOJ against the Georgia law. So the Supreme Court has said, one, those limits on ballot harvesting, those are okay. They don't violate the Voting Rights Act. Two, they said you do not have to accept, allow a provisional ballot from someone who goes to the wrong precinct and doesn't decide to go to the right precinct to cast their vote. So if they cast their vote in the wrong precinct, you can disregard that vote.

That person still has the opportunity to go to the right place to vote, but if they go to the wrong precinct on election day, you can disregard your vote. The Supreme Court said that's okay. So that means there is now binding precedent on the district court that will hear this DOJ challenge to the Georgia law from the U.S. Supreme Court that is very new, very recent.

So it's not something they have to look back in history. They can look back on like last week and see that the Supreme Court, in two provisions that are similar to Georgia's law, said it does not violate the Voting Rights Act, and Harry, that is going to be very key as these challenges to states, and there's about 15 additional states that changed their voting laws as well, tried to update them for voter integrity, because this will now be binding precedent on those courts. Absolutely, and it's very, very important, and I think it will incentivize additional states to get on board and to support strongly voter integrity.

Keep in mind that at the end of the day, the quintessential importance of this decision is grounded in what? Upholding the states' rights to ascertain and to determine what are the voting rules in each and every state. This is a great decision favoring voter integrity.

The Democratic Party tends to oppose voter integrity measures, and of course, they are disappointed. The other victory we filed in this case that we will talk about when we come back from the break, this is a victory for groups like the ACLJ and other nonprofit groups. California, surprise, surprise, and their Attorney General. Actually, we filed the brief. It was Becerra, who is now at HHS, who wanted nonprofit groups to have to disclose their donor list. This would include religious groups, charitable organizations, political organizations, and the Supreme Court said no.

That could silence speech and association, and it tramples on that. We'll talk about that when we come back. For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. We're personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support, and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Music It is, again, key here that these were two of the more divisive cases of the Supreme Court. Now, remember, it doesn't sound as divisive right now because it's six to three because there's a larger conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts, by the way, wrote the opinion in the case on the disclosure for nonprofit groups. I want to start back, though, with the election victory out of Arizona because, Andy, we've now got a new case that's ripe. It's in Georgia. Georgia, again, fundamentally updating their voting laws to provide more voter integrity because people came out of the 2020 election with a lot of doubts, a lot of questions. They wanted to put that to rest and make sure voters knew at least their votes would be counted the right way and that it would not be open to fraud or abuse. There were these two provisions today, both similar to Georgia, one on ballot harvesting, the other on voting in the wrong precinct in the Supreme Court, as well as the Biden administration. To point out to any of those of you who may be on the left side of politics who are listening to the broadcast, the Biden DOJ, interesting enough here, said somehow that this didn't violate the Voting Rights Act Section 2. But at the same time, they're saying that Georgia does. I think, Andy, that's going to be tough for them to figure out the distinction when they're in federal court, and the judge asked about that. Why, in the case of the Supreme Court, were you okay with these limits on harvesting, with basically throwing out ballots that were in the wrong precinct, but now you're saying that Georgia's violating the same code you said Arizona wasn't?

Right, yeah, you're absolutely correct, Jordan. Yesterday on the Broadcaster, whenever we discussed this, you said that what the Georgia law was intended to do was to put aside the election chaos that happened in the 2020 election, and I fastened upon that. Because what the legislature in Georgia did in enacting the law that is being now challenged before Judge Boulay in the federal district court in Atlanta is to try to uphold the integrity of the law by asserting the right of the state of Georgia to enact laws that reasonably protect the integrity and the validity of the ballot. Look, the Voting Rights Act prohibits the states from imposing any rule, quote, which results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on the basis of race. That's what it does, and Arizona's laws were held not to do that. It prohibits third parties from collecting mail-in ballots. Yes, that Georgia has now those restrictive provisions as well.

It limits the people in Arizona, the Arizona law, to family members and the individual voter and caregivers. That was decided by the Supreme Court to be okay, and it disallows votes cast in the wrong precinct. That was decided by the United States Supreme Court to be acceptable, too. What this does in a broader sense, Jordan, is it rejects the attempt by the Biden administration, the Justice Department, especially in the Georgia case, to federalize elections.

The election process is left in the Constitution to the states to determine the means, manner, and method as long as it doesn't abridge on the basis of race. And that's what this Supreme Court—I think the Supreme Court decision is Bronovich v. DNC, which is the name of the decision, is very important and is very significant, will be used as precedent, I know, in the district court case pending in Atlanta. And there could be 14 or 15 more cases like the one out of Georgia that the DOJ brings because there were other states that passed very similar laws as well following the 2020 elections. That may just be round one, and this case, again, will have direct precedent. Recent Supreme Court precedent like this is very important as these judges in the lower courts determine and go forward and make their decisions on these cases. I want to go to Thanh, and then we'll go to the second big case, which is the case that involves groups like us, involves all those of you who support the work of the ACLJ and support financially the ACLJ.

That's the donor disclosure that California was trying to get. But I want to first go to Thanh in D.C. because, Thanh, I think this voting case is extremely important because while the DNC brought this legal challenge, the Biden-DOJ disagreed with the DNC position and actually agreed with Arizona's position, which, as I talked about with Annie and with Harry, I mean, this makes it a little more difficult for them to then go in and say, well, but in Georgia, in Georgia, there's the real problem, even though these two, at least these two items the Supreme Court has said do not violate the Voting Rights Act. I have to wonder if their motive there, Jordan, and this is just me spitballing a little bit, was maybe they saw the writing on the wall in this case and they knew that they were going to lose it in the end, and so they wanted to hedge and reserve their arguments for the state of Georgia.

Because I got to tell you, I don't know that that position is ideologically consistent with their view on the federalizing of election effort that is taking place here in Washington, D.C., through S-1, through S-2093, the For the People Act. But, Jordan, I fully agree with you that the ruling is so important because it's a win for the Constitution, Jordan. I mean, the Constitution clearly gives the authority to set the mechanics of elections to the states, and this ruling acknowledges rightly that those ongoing efforts across the states, by the way, not all in red states, I mean, we talked a couple of days ago about some of the New Hampshire laws, it's largely a blue state that they are looking to defend against infringement from this legislative effort to federalize. Jordan, this ruling today, it justifies the position that we've been advocating for the beginning, that if you want secure elections, the right place to house that authority, as the Constitution does, is at the state level. And by the way, Jordan, some of those states are going to pass regulations and laws that I don't particularly agree with, but as long as they're within the proper framework, that is the proper place for those mechanics to be set, and the Supreme Court rightly acknowledged that today. Yes, okay, so again, a huge victory at the Supreme Court, along ideological lines for the most part, though, what is key is that Chief Justice Roberts, who's kind of been playing this middle-of-the-road broker at the court, is sided with the majority in both of these cases. The second case, this was in our wheelhouse, we filed in this case because it, of course, affects groups like the ACLJ. Harry, this was the classic case, it goes back to the freedom of association, where states want donor lists of nonprofit groups, specifically California, they wanted the top donors of various different charities, nonprofits, political organizations, religious organizations would have had to comply with this and turn over their donor list. Even though California said they would keep them from being released publicly, that was not enough for the court. They said this would still have the ability to silence or chill the freedom of association and the freedom of speech, and thus it's unconstitutional. Correct.

Your analysis is spot on. It's clear beyond question that the release of donor information has a chilling effect on what? Freedom of speech and freedom of association. In California, specifically, it's important to note that an individual who took the leadership of a leading tech firm lost his job. Why? Because his donation to a group that was opposed by the politically correct left in California was disclosed publicly. So I think at the end of the day, it's very, very important to note that the Attorney General in California, standing on the broad shoulders of Kamala Harris and other former attorney generals, basically was targeting right wing groups or conservative groups.

Why? They want to shrink the political capacity of those organizations to advocate on behalf of their members. And so this decision upholds both the right of the charities, the First Amendment rights of charities, but also it upholds the First Amendment rights of donors.

That means that those charities should continue to receive donations from a wide range of individuals. That's very, very important for our democracy. And keep in mind, the Democrats keep saying they want to defend our democracy, but they only want to defend democracy when and if they think it favors their side.

So their approach to democracy is uneven, it's warped, and it's misshapen. And I think the Supreme Court has handed a great victory to the American people, to people who actually believe in the Constitution, who believe in freedom going forward. And I think this is a very, very important signal, and it sends a signal to attorneys generals throughout the United States, particularly in blue states, who essentially want to criminalize being a conservative. Well remember, I just want to point out to everybody, we'll get into this a little more in the next segment of the broadcast, if you've got questions about either of these cases, give us a call at 1-800-684-3110, that's 1-800-684-3110 to be on the air.

Get your comments in on Facebook, on YouTube, Periscope as well, we'll take those comments on the air. But what is important here to point out is that the court started considering these disclosure cases to groups like ours, like non-profit organizations, like the ACLJ. Really it was the civil rights era, and it was states who wanted to know who was giving money to civil rights groups like the NAACP.

And the court, so going back to the 1950s and 60s, said on this disclosure, that's when they started saying the disclosure of the donors, the anonymity of the donors was very important, and to again require these disclosures would really damage potentially these organizations, their ability to organize, which would violate their constitutional rights. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn, it's called Mission Life.

It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad, whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith. I'm covering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress. The ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our matching challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secio 2. Briefly, I think we'll get into this more tomorrow on the broadcast, so my dad will be back on, but we'll talk about these kind of weak indictments that came down against the Trump Organization and the CFO of the Trump Organization. I mean, we're talking about, again, minor. As President Trump said in his statement, these were not charges that the federal government would bring, the IRS would not bring, but of course the DA in New York and the attorney general in New York are obsessed with getting anything on Trump. And by the way, so they're bringing it against a company, an institution, not an individual, not Donald Trump, and the CFO, but I mean these are minor things. Again, this is not people going to jail, this is probably small fines on things like did you pay the right amount of taxes on the car that was given to you as part of your employment or an apartment you used as part of your employment. I think, again, that all of this could be settled by paying whatever tax they think was owed, but I'm not even sure there's any tax owed. I think that there's a real problem with the legal issues here. I mean, they're talking about the whole Trump Organization with all the buildings and all the projects, and it came down to a car, an apartment, and a school tuition. The car and the apartment, I mean, listen, how many of you listen to the broadcast right now maybe driving a corporate company car?

How many of you right now that when travel was common, your corporation may have had corporate apartments all over the country, and so you used those if you had to do long-term travel instead of using hotels because it was more efficient for the company. That's what they're talking about in this case. It's absurd. It is the continuation of a witch hunt that even after Mueller, after the impeachments, after all these investigations, there's nothing on Trump, and the DA and the Attorney General found nothing on Trump, and these are not serious indictments, not serious legal challenges, but we'll get into it more tomorrow if we've got time on tomorrow's broadcast because I think it's clear to point that out that this is, again, the continuation of a witch hunt with really weak, weak indictments that I believe it's not even about merely just paying the fine, but it actually could be beat in court, these legal challenges. I do want to go back to the cases, though, because we talked about the Freedom Association case, and this is very important. In Washington, the idea is that we can organize whether we are a small nonprofit or a large one like the ACLJ, and that our donors, their anonymity will be protected, and certainly this is another victory for that line of thinking, that when you have a time like this that we live in, which is so partisan, you've got all these woke movements, and who's right and who's wrong, and people being canceled, I can't think of a more important time other than the civil rights movement, which it was very important to keep those donors anonymous, because if you were giving money to the NAACP and you worked in a community where segregation was popular and you maybe lose your job if they could go through those lists, that's what they wanted to do, is find out who was funding groups to support the civil rights movement. Dan, we're living in one of those times right now where people are being canceled quickly, so I can't think of another time where people, our donors who are listening to this broadcast, can think of this a victory for them because it continues on that anonymity of organization. Jordan, it's one of the most critical components of our way of government, of the constitutional framework that we have set up that we can freely associate, that we can petition our government for a redress of greed differences, and we can do it in a way that is anonymous at times and freely associate together. You know, Jordan, interestingly enough, I was reading some of the coverage today, and a lot of the headlines said things like a win for conservatives or a win for conservative groups, and you know, I do think a conservative view of the Constitution won here today, but Jordan, if you look at the groups that filed amicus briefs on this, you know, we filed, other conservative groups filed as well, but so did the ACLU, the NAACP, the Human Rights Fund, PETA, the Southern Poverty Law Center, they all filed amicus briefs in the case, and I thought Senator Sasse said it very well. He said, this wasn't a win for conservatives, this was a win for every American, because free speech is for everyone.

Jordan, I think there is a divide on the left. In Washington, D.C., politicians here, they want to see this kind of freedom to petition the government suppressed, but if you look down at the grassroots, if you look at groups on both the right and the left that organize in this way, that associate in this way, and then try to make their views heard, guess who agreed? Everyone on both sides agreed that this was the right ruling for the Supreme Court to make, that this is what the Constitution affords, and by the way, it's the right that groups on both sides, Jordan, it's the right they exercise.

That's right. I mean, it protects the ACLUs, it protects the ACLJs, it protects the political groups, the religious groups, it protects religious political groups, and I can't think of a day where it's kind of more important to have a decision like this reaffirming that important role of being able to have the anonymous pamphleteer, if you will. I mean, it goes back to those days in our founding and the Federalist Papers and the idea of using a pseudonym, and you can't, you know, you're not forced to disclose who was writing that, and you can do this under, and you can make donations to nonprofit organizations anonymously. By the way, this is unique because it falls on the first day of our July matching challenge, where you can double the impact of your donation to the ACLJ. It's a matching challenge month of July. This is obviously the first day, so we're just getting started with the matching challenge, but if you're in a financial position where you can support the work of the ACLJ, I encourage you to make a donation online today at ACLJ.org and double the impact of your donation. So, again, you who are regular listeners understand what we mean with these matching challenges.

Let me just explain it real quick for the radio audience that may be new to a matching challenge. If you donate $20 online right now at ACLJ.org, that is what you'll be charged on your credit card. But that will be effectively is like $40 for the ACLJ because we have a group of donors that have said they will match every donation that comes through in the month of July. They'll match that donation. So every donation is matched. That means it's like a double the impact of your donation because they don't match the donation unless you make it.

It's got to come through initially. So it's a critical time to support the work of the ACLJ. These are very important months for us. We try to spread it out over the year so that, again, we were able to get the resources we need to do the work that we do to continue to expand the work that we do. And a big thank you to everyone out there who's continued to support the work of the ACLJ because I will tell you, and Andy, this is important for everybody here, we've been able to continue to expand under COVID, bring in people like Mike Pompeo and Rick Renell to join the ACLJ team, but also to expand our scope of our work. Even with COVID, when a lot of other organizations were not able to expand, our donors have stood with us and have been extremely generous, and I know they will be this month as well.

That's the whole idea. We subsist and exist and are able to do the things that we do based upon donor contributions. We depend upon our donors. We depend upon those people who see as we see in the case that was decided by the Supreme Court today that the right to associate with others is chilled if you have to disclose that to the government. It's not any of the government's business who I give my money to, who I associate with, who I agree with politically, socially, economically, educationally, religiously, and culturally. That's my business.

The government has no right telling me that I want to know who you are and what you do and why you do it, and that's what the ACLJ stands for, and that's why we depend so heavily on donor contributions to be able to champion those rights, Jordan. Absolutely, folks. Second half hour is coming up on Sekulow. We've got a brand new bald beagle video up for the July 4th holiday. Logan's going to, my brother's going to be joining us to talk about that, as well as a new initiative for the ACLJ that now more than ever campaign, launching its first short documentary video as well. That's launching.

We'll talk about it. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Sekulow Live. And now, your host, Jordan Sekulow.

So I want to get right into this, if you're joining us for the second half hour. And if you're just joining the broadcast, just to make it clear as we jump in, two major victories out of the U.S. Supreme Court today, the final day they issue decisions of the court. Both were 6-3, with the conservative majority and Chief Justice Roberts, and both of those 6-3. So again, a reminder of how the court has shifted currently in that makeup. So a case like this, which falls under kind of the more partisan lines at the court, if you will, a kind of judicial philosophy, it's unique because you've seen a lot of cases that have been 9-0, 7-2.

This time, 6-3 along ideological lines, but very important victories. One is a case we filed, and here's the brief if you're watching the broadcast right now. This is Americans for Prosperity versus Xavier Becerra. And again, this is a case where California wanted as a state to have nonprofit organizations disclose their donors to the state of California, and they wanted the top donors. And the Supreme Court said, no, that chills the freedom of association. It can chill the freedom of speech. You cannot get this California, this data is going to be, the continuation of the anonymity of donors is important, especially at the state level, so that there is not retribution.

I mean, California, let's be honest, is a very liberal state government right now. I would be very concerned as that's why we filed this case, that they would misuse this information to target conservative groups and also conservative donors, major donors to conservative groups who then may feel like it's better to just get out of supporting these groups than it is to continue on with the increased scrutiny of a state. And that's why the Supreme Court said you don't do that.

That would chill, potentially, the ability for these groups to do what their mission statement is. And they comply with the IRS. They comply with the federal rules.

No one's saying you don't have to do that. You comply with all those rules, but at the same time, we're not going to allow states to start demanding this information. So a major victory for groups like the ACLJ. It also protects liberal groups. It also protects groups that are not in politics at all, but religious organizations, charitable organizations.

It protects all of them. The second major victory, this one really ties to that challenge against Georgia's new voting law because there was a challenge by the DNC against the Arizona, two provisions of Arizona's voting law, one on ballot harvesting, which basically prevents ballot harvesting. They allow it only at the level of family members turning in your ballot, you know, like an absentee ballot, or a caregiver specifically, but not someone going around harvesting massive amounts of ballots for people. The court said, by the way, this was all filed in the Voting Rights Act, Section 2.

It did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to have those limits on who can take in a ballot for someone else. Second part of this was if you vote in the wrong precinct, that vote can be disregarded. And, by the way, if you vote in the wrong precinct and you know you're voting in the wrong precinct, you can figure out where to go that day. That's election day voting.

And you can go to the right precinct and vote there. And the court said having that rule where those votes cast at the wrong precinct are disregarded is constitutional. It does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Why is this case so important out of Arizona? Because it's Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that this time the Biden administration is saying Georgia is violating, even though in the Arizona case the Biden DOJ took this position that Arizona was following the rules, was not violating the Voting Rights Act. This time around, it's Georgia is violating the Voting Rights Act. Now, again, that's two similar provisions to the Georgia law. There's more provisions to the Georgia law that are challenging. But this is very recent Supreme Court precedent in a time when the Biden administration and DOJ is looking not just at Georgia, but the 15 other states who also passed similar laws to Georgia's following the chaos of the 2020 election and the voting process. So two major victories at the U.S. Supreme Court, ACLJ filed in that one protecting donor anonymity and the freedom to associate.

We'll be right back. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support.

Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. Welcome back to SEC.

I'll get to your calls in a minute. But I do want to talk about a new campaign we're launching at the ACLJ. My brother Logan is joining us now to talk about that. It's more than ever dot com. We've talked about the ACLJ more than ever.

Now the ACLJ is needed more than ever. And we're launching a series of mini documentaries, Logan, at more than ever dot com. People can see the first one that's up as well. First episode is up. It's a brand new series. Think of it as a TV series we've just launched that you can watch exclusively right now on YouTube. And it's available also at more than ever dot com.

You'll see a link there as well. And the first one's called Our Students Need Us More Than Ever. It goes into not only what we're doing right now in terms of education and school choice, what we've done for the last year, but also the historical look at the ACLJ, what we've done the last 30 years. And it breaks down as all of you guys are in it.

Great voices as well as Mike Pompeo, Rick Grinnell, people you know of, obviously some of the other lawyers, legal team. And it's really a 10 minute or so documentary on how you can get engaged in the fight for education. Again, whether that's through school choice or whether it's what we did last year with COVID. You know, when you talk about we were in the middle of summer, July 1st, but I'm getting emails from my kid's school that we're 45 days away from school starting. So there's a lot of schools that still haven't really sent out their guidelines, what that's going to look like, who's still doing Zoom, who's fully reopened. It's going to be an interesting time, specifically with the news kind of developing. So we're going to be involved in that. So that's why we started to launch with education just halfway through the summer.

You get about 45 days from a lot of kids starting school. This was a good time to come in and start with this. We're going to go through all of our major topics. And Harry wrote an excellent series that was a blog series released earlier this year, an article series. And we've taken that, like I said, and developed it into its own. The easiest way to say it is an Internet exclusive television series. And you can find that, again, directly at MoreThanEver.com.

Or if you're a YouTube subscriber, it's available there right now. These will be rolling out every week. And I think it's very key. You know, it's during our Matching Challenge Month. We launched today, July, which is a very important month for us and a resource to the ACLJ. When you watch something like ItMoreThanEver.com and you see just the work that goes into one issue, that we're able to do on one issue. And as these all develop, you can see the work that we do on so many different issues. But just one issue where we, I think, assisted at least about 1,500 families who were dealing with various education problems when COVID hit. We were launching our school choice initiative, and then it got even on top of that.

People were having trouble. I say, well, they're going to do it at home. But, you know, we don't have the Internet speed. We don't have the iPad. We can't afford it. What about the food programming or the childcare that we're losing?

And we assisted all those different matters. In fact, can we play it for people, too? I know that for some who watch the broadcast, you may have seen this at some of the breaks. But for our radio audience, the bigger audience that just hears, you're going to hear the sound, but this is a full-on show.

Sure, yeah. It's a fully-produced television series produced by our team. This is just a two-minute video. It's a web series, streaming series. This is just two minutes of it. You can take a look and give you a little sample of what the first episode's like.

Again, you can find it on morethanever.com. Let's take a look at this segment. We've been working on school choice and defending it in court for decades. What we learned very quickly from many parents who were reaching out to the ACLJ is that their child had been left behind. I'm very interested in creating a foundation of education for those folks in the middle-income arena as well as kids living in poverty, kids like myself who perhaps live in the wrong zip code going to underperforming schools. I'd love to give parents the tool of choice. They were trying to pass this kind of like broad-based, one-size-fits-all approach to education when you had special needs students that had special needs, and the county had the resources to do it.

They just weren't forthcoming. We literally had schoolchildren who were sitting on curbs near police cars in order to steal the internet from the police cars so that they could complete their assignments. We were able to come alongside families and make sure that school districts found a way to give those children educational options during the pandemic. This is an administration coming in saying, we want to shut down charter schools.

We want to only have public school options and then private schools for those who can afford it, which most of their kids go to. The ACLJ occupies a very special space. There are lots of other places that do lots of important work for America, but the ACLJ has taken up a lane which is irreplaceable.

The More Than Ever campaign is all about reminding Americans that now we need the ACLJ more than ever. As we come out of this pandemic into the new school years, what's it going to be like for the students? What's it going to be like for the teachers? How are the schools going to operate? Are they going to fall into their old habits? The answer to that is, not if we can help it. That's why we really believe that the ACLJ on the education front is needed now more than ever. We have an opportunity here.

We have to seize it. That's kind of just a preview. These are about 10, 12 minutes long. You think about cut out, there's no commercials or anything like that. It gets into an issue. I think everybody that's on the broadcast right now is on that. Everybody's on it and weighed into this very important issue. Not only has it been a forefront of what we've done for 30 years, but really obviously in the last 12 months, you can really see what we've done. The idea for More Than Ever sparked last year as we knew a lot of people joined us the last four years when you had a more friendly administration. They may be concerned going into, what can the ACLJ do when you don't have a friendly administration? We're giving you a bit of a history lesson on what it looked like even before this and what it can look like in the future.

That's right. I think this issue, school choice, this is an issue that is gaining momentum nationally. It gained a lot of momentum when there were the COVID restrictions and we want to build on that momentum. Ultimately, every American, wherever they are, whatever zip code they live in, has opportunities to send their kids to better schools if they so choose.

Those schools are a private school, a different public school, a religious school. They have those choices because we know that your whole life all depends on the foundation you have. Jordan, I really believe this is a moment in time on this issue. This has been a long-term issue for the ACLJ. We've been advocates of school choice for a long time. Just saw the data made sense that when parents make decisions for their children, that works out better than when bureaucrats make them.

We've held that view for a long time. But Jordan, the pandemic made it very real for millions of Americans all of a sudden. The specific project that we're talking about that took place over the pandemic, the way I always phrase it is we were looking for a way to provide real solutions to real problems for real families.

But Jordan, the underlying issue, it doesn't go away. Even when the pandemic moves away, there's still this choice between giving parents an ability to choose where their children get their education or letting a bureaucrat do it. And look, I think Senator Scott's got a lot of good ideas. And quite frankly, there are Democrats in Washington, D.C., that over the course of the pandemic, they've seen the truth on this, Jordan.

Now, when it comes to enacting that piece of legislation, will their vote be there? I'm not sure, but I do think this pandemic leads us to a moment in time where we've got a real opportunity. Yeah, I mean, this, to me, I think, you know, Harry, the school choice issue and the school choice initiative that we've launched, and of course it kind of was hit first with COVID, it's important just for everybody to realize, I think when they watch this documentary at morethanever.com, the amount of resources we have available, the attorneys we have available, where we were able to assist those 1,500 families from some small issues they had to some major issues.

Absolutely. I think it's very, very important to note that public schools, public school teachers unions, and many public school teachers have abdicated their responsibility for educating our children. And so now more than ever, we should provide options to school children throughout the country. And so the ACLJ has launched a very important effort to do so, to provide options, and to ensure that options that are already on the books, already on the table, are now made available to parents and school children. At the end of the day, the problems that we face in terms of public education could cause long-term consequences and increase income disparity for large segments of the population.

And I think the ACLJ, along with others, is doing a fantastic job in terms of moving into that space and trying to narrow the gaps, the economic, the success gaps, the educational gaps that exist with respect to public education in America. When we come back from the next break, first of all, we'll take Roger and Terry's phone calls. But we're also on Bald Beagle. There's a new video, Logan, as well.

Our children's channel, our kids' history channel, which is also on YouTube as well. You can find Bald Beagle there. So if you're in break, you're going to see a segment from it.

So don't think that something happened when you start seeing puppets talk about Independence Day. But there's an important reason why we do Bald Beagle. We'll talk about that as well, show some clubs.

That's right. And again, you can check that out. Where's the best place for people to find the Bald Beagle? BaldBeagle.com or on YouTube. That's where you find it.

We go where the kids are. A lot of times you go around these holidays, national holidays, this is when the video is released. So this is for Independence Day, July 4th holiday. So you want to check this out as well, BaldBeagle.com.

But we'll talk about it when we come back. We'll take your phone calls as well. Remember, today we begin the matching challenge month of July. The entire month, whenever you are able to financially contribute to the ACLJ online, is matched. So you double the impact of your donation. It is a very important month for us at the ACLJ.

It's critical for these resources. So if you're financially in a position to contribute to the ACLJ, this is a great time to do it because you double the impact of your donation. Make that donation online at ACLJ.org.

We'll be right back. For more information, visit ACLJ.org We'll show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life. Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom, protecting those who are persecuted for their faith, uncovering corruption in the Washington bureaucracy, and fighting to protect life in the courts and in Congress, the ACLJ would not be able to do any of this without your support.

For that, we are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in a unique way. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's Matching Challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20.

A $50 gift becomes $100. This is a critical time for the ACLJ. The work we do simply would not occur without your generous support. Take part in our Matching Challenge today. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family.

Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org. Welcome back to Secular. I want to get right to the phones, then we'll talk about the new bald beagle video up for Independence Day.

It's great for your kids, but I think you'll have fun watching it too. We'll talk about that with Logan in a second, but I do want to get to the phone calls. First, Roger in Oregon, on Line 1. Hey Roger, welcome to Secular.

Jordan, thank you for taking my call. My question is, the rationale for these two Supreme Court decisions makes total sense to me. What is the dissent rationale used for each of these two decisions? Okay, so the decision on the disclosure of donors, which we filed, and I think that their view point is that this isn't disclosing it publicly, so that the state has said that this is still going to be kept confidential, and so maybe they didn't have as big of an issue with that. As Justice Sotomayor said, the court is protective of First Amendment rights. It typically requires that plaintiffs demonstrate an actual First Amendment burden before demanding that a law be narrowly tailored. So again, it wasn't so much that they were saying that this was definitely okay, but they were saying that maybe there hasn't been the harm yet to bring the case.

I think that, listen, they're the minority. It's important to understand their, I guess, thinking and rationale, but what they are saying is they didn't think there would be the same kind of burden because it's not like it's being disclosed to the public automatically, but as we know, you give it to the bureaucracy, it is disclosed, and they know, and they're able to take advantage of that. On the second case, on the voting rights case, I think it's the more liberal view of what the Voting Rights Act means, a more expansive view, and they basically want to strike down any kind of restrictions and regulations on voting, but you've got to have rules on election day. You have to have rules for an election. So I think, again, as Justice Kagan wrote there, just to answer your question, that this was somehow outside, Congress didn't pass this, so it's somehow a federal role because of the Voting Rights Act. I mean, so I don't want to get too in the weeds on it because the idea is it's a major victory, again, six to three, six to three in both these cases. And again, we can spend time more on the dissent, but they aren't the dissent.

They are not the majority, and they are not what the precedent that it sets. Let's go to Terry in California online, too. Hey, Terry.

Hey there. I'm just super glad about the Supreme Court ruling on the disclosure. You know, Gavin Newsom is under a recall campaign here in California, and about two months ago, I think, he was pushing his attorney general to demand the recall campaign to disclose donors. And we're in such a hyper-acute political situation. Can you imagine if all of those people that supported the campaign had their names and contact information given out to whomever?

Could you imagine what those people's lives would have been like? Yeah, I mean, no, it would not be good for a lot of people who donated to that, depending on where you live in California and what industry you work in in California, because you may support those recall efforts, and you may have donated to the organization that's collecting the signatures, getting out the information about the recall, supporting the recall of Newsom, and then all of a sudden, you know, your job is in jeopardy. You could be threatened. And that is why, Andy, the Supreme Court, going back to the Civil Rights Movement, has interpreted these requirements to disclose as a burden on our constitutional rights. It is a burden on your constitutional rights because, believe me, you will face recriminations if the person that you gave it to is victorious in the election and sees that you gave to his opponent or her opponent, they would say there's going to be a way that I won't get back at you.

There's no doubt about it. It would happen this way, but this is such a victory for the freedom of association that I cannot emphasize it enough, the freedom to associate with your people who believe in what you believe and to do it privately, not to have the government interfere in it by sticking its nose into the affairs. And I ask myself the question, when they wanted to know on their schedules in California who you donated to and who the major donors were, what for? What do you need to know that for? What is the constitutional reason you need to know that for? What is the administrative reason you need to know that for?

The answer is there is none. It's just keeping tabs on us and seeing who we vote for, who we donate to in this case, who we involve ourselves into politically, socially, economically, and my view is that that is not any of the government's business and the Supreme Court has upheld that view today in a resounding opinion that was written. Now, Logan, we've been talking about these two cases, but I did want to get back to them because we talked about the more-than-ever.com and the new series we have running there, so people need to check that out.

The first one is on school choice and what we did for families. You've also got a new fun video out for July 4th for Independence Day on Bald Beagle. The point of Bald Beagle when we launched it was to give a sort of alternative educational platform for American history. With that, we have a lot of fun with it. We don't want to just give kids boring history lessons. A lot of times it's songs and sketches and comedy.

It's almost always puppets. We have a lot of fun making them, but there is a bigger purpose. It's the reason why it's a project of the ACLJ. This isn't just something we do for fun on the side. This is an ACLJ project specifically because we think it's important to educate the next generation on American history and where things come from and government and how everything works. So we did that last year.

It started last year again during COVID when everything started shutting down kind of to tie into the school choice whole issue that came up and all of the issues that came up with COVID restrictions in terms of students. So we decided to come up with this project and we put out a video every month or two and put out a new one. So this one's for Independence Day and you can find it again on Bald Beagle, like the dog, Beagle.com, or find it on YouTube as well. It's a great video. It's a lot of fun. Do we have time to play it? Here's a quick, quick, we might come in early. Remember, this is something you would watch. Yeah, it's a lot more fun to see it.

Pull it up on YouTube on your TV. I still don't see why we have parties and barbecues just because they signed a piece of paper. Oh, son, it was so much more than just a piece of paper. Actually, I think I can be of assistance. Who are you? My name's Cabana Charlie. I take care of this beach and I love Independence Day. I've also been known to play a song or two. So you know why we have big parties on the 4th of July?

Well, sure I do. It's because we're free. And let me tell you something, freedom is worth celebrating. From across the sea, England's grip was strong.

The king's abuse got harder every day. The colonists tried to air their grievances, but the king wouldn't give them their say. Alright, so that's just a very short clip of the song.

It's available right now. It's a whole 7-minute video called Independence Day. Freedom Should Be Celebrated. It gives kids an idea of why we celebrate the 4th of July and Independence Day. Not just that, we do. Here's the backstory.

Here's why we do it. I had a fun song that's easy to remember and sing along with. My kids have been singing it for the last couple of weeks as we've been working on it. Visually it's cool because you've got, in this video, puppets and animation interacting together.

So it's done at a very high level. You heard it if you weren't watching the broadcast. You heard it, but this is really something you want to go and watch. I think it's cool to see that we're doing this even if you don't have young kids anymore. If you're a grandparent as well, showing it to your grandkids.

Maybe they're coming over for July 4th or for the weekend and celebrating too. This is something you can pull up on your Smart TV on YouTube. Check out the Bald Beagle channel. This is a fun one as well.

You can also, if you've never checked it out before, see all the other videos that are available at Bald Beagle's YouTube page. Let me just encourage you, ACLJ, we've launched our matching challenge month of July. Today is July 1st. If you could support the work of the ACLJ financially, it's a great time to do it. Donate online at ACLJ.org and double the impact of your donation. That's ACLJ.org.

We'll talk to you tomorrow. At the American Center for Law and Justice, we're engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. For a limited time, you can participate in the ACLJ's matching challenge. For every dollar you donate, it will be matched. A $10 gift becomes $20. A $50 gift becomes $100. You can make a difference in the work we do, protecting the constitutional and religious freedoms that are most important to you and your family. Give a gift today online at ACLJ.org.