BREAKING: Big Supreme Court Win for Churches in California

Breaking news today on Jay Sekulow Live, a big win at the Supreme Court for Churches in California. We'll talk about that and more today on Jay Sekulow Live.

Welcome to Jay Sekulow Live, this is Jordan Sekulow. As you know the Supreme Court 5 to 4 said the New York ban on gatherings, places of worship, churches, synagogues was unconstitutional. And they've taken the next step too in California as well. It's an order that came out just this morning actually from the Supreme Court. I'm holding it in my hands for people.

It's very short on Facebook, Periscope, Parler, wherever you're watching. It's a petition for injunctive relief presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the court. It's treated as a petition for a writ of cert and the September 2nd order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated. Cases remanded to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit with instructions to remand to the district for further consideration in light of the case out of New York. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn vs Cuomo where Cuomo lost and New York lost that case trying to ban houses of worship for having again their services within person. So this is a huge win for all religious faiths in California and I think it sends a signal to it's the whole country now because it's not the Supreme Court specific just to something happening in New York. They're applying what they did in New York very broadly and saying if you try to do even the similar thing in California can't do it. We also have one in Illinois. We filed a brief there.

It's going to come down exactly the same way and that is not because, it is because specifically of the addition of Justice Barrett. Yeah, so what's interesting here is we have a case in California that's directly impacted by this. We represent Calvary Chapel, Fort Bragg, a California nonprofit church, River of Life Church. We sued Gavin Newsom. We did this as the American Center for Law and Justice with our friend Robert Tyler from Advocates for Faith and Freedom. So we both filed that. And we've been waiting for an order from the court there.

What is interesting now in light of the decision last week 5 to 4 and then this week and what's so fascinating about this. This application was presented to Justice Kagan and it was Justice Kagan who then referred it to the court. The court then said that the application for an injunctive relief, in other words, to stop the prohibitions against the churches is treated as a petition for certiorari even though judgment had not been rendered.

That's unusual. And the petition is granted. The September 2nd order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California is vacated. The case is remanded in light of consideration of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo which was the decision last week. Harry, this is a really good sign for religious freedom.

Absolutely. So if you look at today's order and if you look at the November 25th order by the United States Supreme Court, it is clear beyond question that the Supreme Court is creating a pattern in strong support of religious liberty. Indeed, even if you look at the November 25th decision involving the Roman Catholic Diocese of New York v. Cuomo, it's important to keep in mind that that decision with respect to religious liberty is even stronger because both Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer who voted in the minority strongly supported the notion of religious liberty and they even believed that Cuomo's restrictions likely violated the First Amendment. So you've got to see that you've got a supermajority now in a sense very committed to religious liberty and while this is significant and it is very significant, as these other cases go up I think they're going to be summarily handled. I think this is Jordan's exactly how they're going to handle them and this is exactly why you need to be supporting the work of the American Center for Law and Justice. That's why you get these lawsuits in and across the country as we've done. We represent the churches in California, in Illinois, because it's not just specific to what happened in New York. The court is now saying what happened in New York, this is what's going to happen in every country but you have to bring us a challenge. That's the key is you've got a state that has shut down in-person worship, you've got to bring us a challenge and we'll then instruct the courts to use our reasoning out of the case in New York and open back up these places of worship. We're going to stay live because I want to talk to our Facebook and YouTube audiences about this so don't go away, we've got a lot more ahead.

On radio back in a minute, YouTube stay with us. 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, playing 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 Jay Sekulow Live. This is Jordan Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. We've got a lot to talk about here. First of all, if you're just joining us, you need to know the Supreme Court, because of the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Justice Barrett has shifted the court. Remember, Chief Justice Roberts was part of the court's majority, denying the appeals of places of worship when they were fighting back against these orders to shut down and have no in-person worship.

And he was with the liberal, four liberals, and he still is with the three liberals. He now sides with, when it was that the court was in an eight justice, or when Justice Ginsburg was there with the four liberals, now he's with the three liberals. But Justice Barrett has changed the makeup of how the court sees religious liberty, and specifically the First Amendment. We saw that in the case in New York, now in California, and we're going to see it across the country. No more will these governors be able to trample on the constitutional rights of Americans, and one of those rights, of course, is the right to worship, and of course the free exercise of religion, and again, they are saying that these rulings by the governors, these edicts by governors, to randomly decide who can go in person and who can't, you cannot do that to places of worship.

They are specifically protected under the Constitution. That is a huge shift in the court, and it took the confirmation of Justice Barrett to get to that shift. That's how important getting that nomination through and done was so important, and we're already seeing the ramifications.

I mean, this is a lasting legacy. Now, the question's going to be, I'm going to go to Fan on this, there's some, they're even getting nominations through right now. I saw this morning that there's nominations going, what's the latest on that?

Then I'm going to talk about some of the elections situation. Yeah, nominations actually being reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee as we speak, Jay, so additional nominees, by the way, including the replacement for Justice Barrett on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. So all the way to the very end of the term, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate floor are processing these nominees. As we speak, Jay, it's 229 federal judges that have been confirmed. That number's going to go up, and I would just say it very clear, and we say it on this broadcast all the time, judges and justices matter, but in this case, Jay, it's literally the difference between a win and a loss and whether or not churches across this country are going to be treated on even par with restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. That's how important judges and justices are.

Look, this is, all I can say is that this is a really great decision. It's a very good day for the Supreme Court, it's a very good day for religious freedom, it's a good day for the churches, it's a good day for President Trump. Now, let's talk about President Trump, and that is the ongoing litigation battles. There is a case filed now in Georgia, another one that's been filed yesterday. Leader Mitchell, colleague of ours, has filed a lawsuit there alleging violations of state law as well. Wisconsin now has two lawsuits filed. Arizona, of course, Jordan, I think you reported on that this morning.

This is a very interesting development. In Arizona, the judge ordered a recount of specific kind of ballots. These are ballots that come in and something happened to them, like in the mail, they got torn, ripped, or something happened through the machine, and so the poll workers correct them to the best of their ability so that your vote counts. Well, they just reviewed 100, and out of the 100, now this may sound small, but out of 100, when you're talking about tens of thousands of votes, start adding this number up, two out of the 100 were corrected to vote for Joe Biden that should have been clearly voted for Trump.

Two out of the 100. So the judge has ordered now a review of 2,500 more in Arizona like this, and you, again, just start doing the math. If there was some systematic way where if they could somehow try to put the vote some other way, that would show not only illegal conduct, but it is fraud on the behalf of those election workers, and it's certainly illegal. So what I said today, I was on Newsmax this morning before we were on air, and I said what we're seeing is not so much that we're seeing new cases filed, but we're also seeing the fruits of the original cases that were filed alleging illegal conduct by the states. It all started with the stay out of Pennsylvania, where they said you can't take in these late incoming ballots, you can't violate the laws that are on the books without changing the laws. You didn't do that, so you can't just do it by executive fiat at the state level, so we're putting a stay in place. That stay is still in place. I was going to say, the interesting thing about that is, of course, where you represent the President in that, and we intervened in that case because originally we weren't a party, but that stay has stayed in place now for a month, so the initial stay that was issued by Justice Alito has stayed in place. Harry, that tells me, you know, it's hard to read tea leaves on these things, that the Supreme Court's trying to keep a status quo kind of situation to see what develops here over the next week or ten days. I think that's precisely correct, and the key issue here is accuracy, accuracy in voting. So if we take Jordan's comment with respect to Arizona, that is a very, very important decision because based on the results of 100 votes, we now know that there was a possibility at least, if this carries forward, that that's a 4% vote swing because it's two votes, that should have gone to Trump, but actually went the other way, so that's a 4% vote swing. That's enough, if it carries forward in other precincts, to change the outcome in Arizona. And Cleena Mitchell just sent me a note that they are filing today. It's not been filed yet, but the one in Georgia, in addition to the ones that have already been filed, is being filed sometime today.

Excuse me, that's the plan. And then, of course, in Nevada, Rick Rinnell's team, he'll be joining us later in the broadcast, they got to review the machines. They're getting to review the machines themselves. In Georgia, three counties, a judge said you cannot delete the information on those voting machines.

Those three counties are, you've got Gwinnett and Cobb, they went to Biden, and Cherokee, which went to Trump. So there can be a review of those. Now, they're all being fought out. Now, you've got states saying, we don't want you to have that review. Now, Rick Rinnell's going to be joining us later, because I want to know how that process is working in Nevada, because in Georgia, the state's coming in and saying, we can't allow you to review it, because that would allow you to see proprietary information.

So they're trying to fight back. Republican governor and Republican secretary of state, who, by the way, Republican secretary of state, you know what finally got him to say, you know what, maybe there was fraud here? He had a son who passed away, and his son has gotten, that son who passed away has gotten three different voter registration pieces in the mail from the group started by Stacey Abrams, then taken over by Warnock. And now he's looking into it when there's a runoff and it affected him. But he's not looking, he didn't look into it when it was the Presidential election, and this is the guy who goes and whines on television. This is, that one makes me sick, because it only matters to these politicians when they see it firsthand. They don't believe anybody.

They don't want to look, they always want to look the other way. And the truth is, now we're seeing, I mean count up those states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, that's clearly enough to be outcome determinative. Yeah, and Pennsylvania, of course. This is what the secretary of state said. Here's something that came to our house yesterday. We got three of them, all from the same organization. And it's to my son, Brenton J. Raffensperger, who passed away two years ago. Okay, so, and that I feel horrible about. That's terrible.

And the fact that they sent it to his son shows you what, how these are fraught with fraud. But let me make a very clear statement on Georgia, because I think this is important. We have a national election taking place in Georgia.

I want everybody to be aware of this. This is a national election. This is not just picking two senators that represent the state of Georgia. This is control of the United States Senate.

So this is the equivalent of a Presidential race. It's a branch of government, or at least half of a branch of government, that is literally at stake during this election. And I know there's some in Atlanta, some lawyers I know, saying don't vote. First of all, you have a constitutional obligation to vote.

That's number one. And vote, you know, we don't tell you to vote for it, but you need to vote. But understand what's at stake, whether you're Republican or Democrat or independent. This is the control of the United States Senate that is at play here. So when reckless statements are made about not voting because they don't trust the machines, look, we're doing everything we can and will do on election integrity issues.

That's what the ACLJ is, one of the things we do. But then this idea, people need to understand, in Georgia, what's at stake here for the rest of the country. Well, yeah, so much is at stake, Jay, and let me just say this very clearly, the side that unifies the swiftest and the most effectively is going to win both of those seats. Because look, there's some idea out there right now that, you know, you can go a couple more weeks and tell people not to vote, and then at the end, you'll tell them to vote. Jay, mobilization on the ground right now to get on the fence voters motivated, to get people who aren't registered, registered to vote. Jay, this is when that election will be won.

So I'm going to say it again, the side that unifies the quickest and the most effectively, Jay, they're going to win both these seats. You know, Jordan, I cannot stress enough. I mean, I was very discouraged when I heard people I know, lawyers I know, in Atlanta yesterday saying don't vote.

This is absurd. Don't abdicate. Fight. I mean, my goodness, the President's fighting until the bitter end here. We're litigating, we're, I mean, we've got a case still standing at the Supreme Court on the election. I can't tell you how it's going to go. It's an uphill battle.

We all know that. Odds are against us. Can anything happen? Sure. Could it go the other way?

Yeah. But I'm going to tell you this, to abdicate a branch of government because you don't think that the Georgia officials were tough enough during the Presidential election, which I tend to agree with, is ridiculous. That's a very bad response to a national election. And that's what this is. I think what people need to understand is there's some actors in this. I'm not saying their legal work is bad. They're not truly true conservatives. They came on board with Trump. They weren't, they could have been Democrats before this. They don't get it, what they're saying.

They don't understand the makeup of the Senate and how that would change everything or stop everything if Joe Biden got in. 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, plan 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 the broadcast everyone. Taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Let's go ahead and take a call now.

Let's get one out of the way. Let's go to Karen in New Mexico online. Hey Karen, welcome to JCAC You Live. Hi Karen. Thank you.

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your efforts. Our state has been under almost total lockdown since March. We have a very ambitious Democrat governor who is working really hard to get noticed by the national party. Our churches have suffered.

What do we do? Well, let me ask you this Karen. Are the Walmarts and these stores open in your community?

The Lowes, those kind of stores? Absolutely. Absolutely. She did recently shut down some of those chain grocery stores. There were a few that didn't meet the... That was it?

Not meeting the individual standard? For instance, are amusements open? Bowling alleys, gyms, are they open? They have been.

I believe they're closed now. Okay, so she's rolling back some restrictions because of the increase in COVID. Look, it should be what goes for Walmarts and Sams and Costco should go for the church. That's my view. It's a simple test. It's the Walmart Costco test, I'll call it.

It's that simple. So Karen, what it takes is it takes one of those churches to file the challenge. They can contact us at aclj.org. Maybe it's your church specifically because what the Supreme Court has set up is basically said bring us your case and we're going to handle it quickly for you and you can have in-person worship and the governors can't do this. So I've been out in New Mexico during this lockdown.

Karen is right. It is almost hard to imagine how locked down places like Albuquerque are when basically the only people you see on the street are frontline workers like when there's a shift of doctors and nurses. But, again, we're months into this and like you said, you can still go to the Walmart, you can still go to the grocery store, but you can't go to church. The Supreme Court has said no more to that.

No more to that. But you have to bring the challenge to the court. So you've got to get a church in New Mexico that says we'll bring the challenge, we will challenge the state, and it will quickly get to the Supreme Court and they will be victorious. They will win. They will win with just a paragraph from the court.

I mean, that's all it will take. Yeah, and we just filed a brief in a case, the Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Church against Governor Pritzker in Illinois. Let me tell you what we wrote in the beginning.

We said review is necessary here for all the reasons set forth in the petition for certiorari. Additionally, Amicus argues, that's us, urged this court to grant summary reversal of the Seventh Circuit ruling that Order 32 did not unconstitutionally target religion by limiting religious worship to 10 persons while imposing no limits with religious worship. So a church could have a community meeting, Harry, with, I'm sure, restrictions, but not a 10 limit.

If it's a church service, though, it's a 10 limit. The Supreme Court's going to clearly—I mean, I don't think—is there any doubt where they're ruling on this? I mean— No, I don't think so, but I also think that these rulings by the United States Supreme Court should be perfectly obvious to a competent governor. They cannot discriminate against religion.

It's clearly protected by the United States Constitution, but they fail to understand that. Yeah, let's go ahead and take another call. Yeah, Layla in California on Line 3.

Hey, Layla, welcome to JCQO Live. Hi, guys, thank you for taking my call. I donate when I can because I know how hard—my point is, is that the majority of cases are in fast food and government buildings. I think they should take a page from the churches and see how they're working to keep their people safe.

Yeah. It's a hypocrisy, and I have one more—one more issue that I want to— I want to underscore something you said. I think the Supreme Court has made it clear and is making it clear line by line, sentence by sentence, and case by case that there's not a First Amendment exception for churches during a pandemic, that they have to be treated like other buildings, other facilities, and the numbers just cannot be made up by these governors who said, you could have a 10,000 seat arena, Harry—and we'll go back to Layla in a minute—a 10,000 seat worship center, but you can only have 10 people there. I mean, it doesn't even make sense. So on the face, many of these restrictions are absolutely absurd, but consistent with your point, Jay, as a factual matter in the case involving the Roman Catholic Diocese in New York, the churches and the synagogue, they have maintained all precautionary measures, and they have operated at 25 percent or 33 percent capacity for months without a single outcome.

A single outbreak of the coronavirus. Exactly. So that kind of tells you where this is. Layla, your last comment. My last comment is about the voting side. We have to go through deep because I—my daughter witnessed someone being registered as a voter asking the person—and she was 60, and I'm glad that she paid attention in class, and the lady who was helping the woman with green card, I don't know. She asked her, I am not a citizen, but I'm already registered to vote.

And my daughter was listening because when you go to the DMV, you have to fill out whatever, you know. Yeah, what your daughter needs to do is go to—I mean, California is not going to be outcome-determinative, but you can report that to your local election precinct. That's what you should do in a situation like report it to your local election precinct.

Look, Jordan, it seems to me—and you've been following this really closely—that it's shifting. It's not just fraud allegations now. It's violations of state law.

Right? That's the issue specifically. In Wisconsin, 220,000 votes come in, mail-in votes come in. Under Wisconsin law, those people can be contacted if they did something—220,000 that had errors, so they didn't mark their forms right. Under Wisconsin law, they can—they're to be contacted, and then it's up to them to come in and correct that. They said in Wisconsin what the lawsuit alleges is that the poll workers just fixed it for them. Well, that's not what the law says.

It's not fraud. It's illegal conduct that violates the laws of the state of Wisconsin, but then also implicates voters around the country. Because if you allow those 220,000 illegal votes to be counted, where the law wasn't followed, you are disenfranchising people who voted not in Wisconsin and other states because you're allowing illegal votes under their state law. So it also then brings in federal issues as well of equal protection and due process. So I think what you're starting to see now—what you're starting to see now is that these lawsuits, the really focused lawsuits, are focusing on when you had state laws in place, and they were just completely ignored.

And courts are going to have to determine, is that okay? Is this just going to be okay for this election cycle, and what kind of precedent does that set? Because we talk about protecting the integrity of the election. What kind of precedent does that set for future elections? The Georgia secretary of state—it's a sad story, but the truth is he's been a horrendous secretary of state.

But here's the truth to Georgia voters. There's a lot of bad refs. They make bad calls during games. The players don't walk off the field and quit. They still try to win.

That's what you need to do in Georgia if you're a conservative. Yeah, you've had some bad refs there. We're still fighting them in court. And they're even admitting they were bad.

Now they're admitting that there could be fraud in their state, finally. But you don't walk off the field. Don't follow the advice of these actors who are just popping up, who have never been involved in politics before. Do not follow their advice. Follow the advice of people who understand how the balance of power works, how Washington works, and whether or not you'd like a new Green Deal, whether you want a tax hike, whether you want the most liberal nominees all to get a pass, or if you want to check on that power, if it comes to that.

So go and vote in Georgia. Stay on the field. Don't be some loser who just says, I'll walk off because I don't like the ref's call. We'll be right back on Jay Sekio Live. Support the work of the ACLJ at ACLJ.org. But again, don't be that loser kid.

You stay on the field and you win the game. 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., Jay Sekulow Live. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. All right, welcome back to Jay Sekulow Live. This is Jordan Sekulow. We are taking your phone calls 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. So a big win out of the Supreme Court. You knew about the win out of New York. The court five-four said no, Cuomo and the state. You cannot impose these restrictions on in-person worship, whether it is a synagogue or a church or another place of worship. There is a constitutional right there in the First Amendment and you cannot trample on that. That now involves California.

So California, similar challenge. They get the order. And now this is against Newsom. So first it was Cuomo, now Newsom. This is all it took from the Supreme Court the second time.

Half a page. So if you're in a state, now we represent churches in California, we represent churches in Illinois, the Supreme Court is making the indication very clear publicly that they're not trying to do this state by state, case by case basis. They're saying nationally, you cannot tell churches to do this. So if your church brings the case against the governor and your state has one of those lockdown rules where there's no in-person worship, the Supreme Court is striking those restrictions down nationwide. But you have to, the Supreme Court to do that has to do it state by state. They've got to have the cases brought to them and we're bringing them out of Illinois now and I think a lot of other states are going to start doing that too. But remember, it's not every state that's done this either. It's the Newsom's, it's the Cuomo's, it's the New Mexico's, it's the bluest of blue states. Somebody on Facebook, I just saw one of the comments flash by, said that in Minnesota, I guess they have some casinos, and most of the people there are elderly and they're operating at about 60% capacity and those are operating.

The church can have 10 people. This tells you how absurd this is. Now, we also need to say that obviously the addition of Amy Barrett as Justice Barrett has made a big difference on the Supreme Court of the United States. We know that we've got a stay in place from the Pennsylvania litigation on the election. That's still in place. We have a stay in place for the financial records of the President. That is still in place.

That's been a month. And fan, we know today that nominees to fill Amy Barrett's spots are being discussed or maybe even voted on. Yeah, the spot that was vacated in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, that nominee is being voted out of committee and the intention is to confirm him on the floor of the Senate, maybe as soon as next week, Jay. I would add just maybe one thing to your substantive discussion about, you know, this is what we've argued from the very beginning, that a First Amendment restriction should be the last to be imposed and the first to roll back. But Jay, I just want people to understand this very clearly. There's also a strategic tactical reason why we've argued all across the country. It's for this exact scenario. So when you get one good ruling in New York, Jay, our ruling in California, it's ready to go.

That's why you spread out. That's why you make good legal strategy, good tactics so you can't get this nationwide impact. But let me do say something. We have been arguing these cases before the Supreme Court of the United States for four decades. Let me repeat the number. In the 80s, in the 90s, in the 2000s, in the 2010s, and now in the 2020s, five decades.

Now, the early part of five decades, I'm not that old, but four full decades and five going into the fifth decade. And it's been precedent upon precedent. And then as justices shift, things happen in cases you argued in literally in 1990 where they said you cannot discriminate against the church's viewpoint or the positions they're advocating in public access. Those same principles are what's now being applied, Harry, right here during the coronavirus.

Absolutely. And your analysis is very spot on because there are up to 20 lawsuits involving houses of worship that are pending and could be affected by the Supreme Court's decision making, particularly last week. And then it has followed up on that decision with today's decision involving California. Which is a great reason to support the work of the ACLJs. We start our December final month of the year matching challenge. On ACLJ.org, you double the impact of donations.

You can see, I mean, a big thank you to everybody who donated in November. Again, a huge month for the ACLJ and important because there's so much work to do across the country on so many issues and so much, so many battles that we have to prepare for. As attorneys, you know, you have to prepare for best and worst case scenarios.

Oftentimes, it's the worst case scenarios that you're preparing for the most. We fight out in court, you know, the election. You also have to prepare for what would happen if Georgia went blue in the Senate races.

What would happen if Joe Biden takes the oath of office in January? We have to be ready for that at the ACLJ. Support our work. Rick Rinnell, special advisor to the ACLJ, joining us next. 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. 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, 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 Jay Sekio Live.

This is Jordan Sekio. Joining us now is Special Advisor Rick Rinnell, Special Advisor on National Security and Foreign Policy, but of course he's been very involved in the efforts to protect election integrity, specifically in Nevada. And in Nevada, a new order came out that there could be this look at, that you could inspect the voting machines. This actually goes to the voting machines issue that people talk about. We wanted to talk to Rick about that, because this is key, because the machines have been kind of, the leftist kind of said, oh, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, and sure there's been some out there that are kind of wild on the internet, but a judge actually said, look into it. Yeah, so judges are interesting, because Rick, you know, we've got a judge in Arizona now saying, hey, we've got to look at some of these ballots.

You had a 3% correction rate, or 4% as Harry calculated, where votes should have gone to President Trump out of 100. Now we've got, so they want them to look at 2,500. You went, your team went in, in Nevada, to seek access to the machines.

What was the, and you got an order, what's been the results so far? Well, first of all, let's be very clear, the judge said that we should be able to inspect the machines. We presented our case, and the judge said, yeah, let's let them go look at the machines and the ballots. And the team went in there yesterday, and basically the government gave them a tour.

They didn't allow them to inspect the machines. So we've gone back to the judge to say, wait a minute, this is not what your order said. You know, there's a lot of complaints about, you know, bring your claims of fraud forward and we'll look into them. And yet what we're finding is when we do, there's not a lot of looking into them. And let's remember that the votes, the ballots, the envelopes, all of this information is being held by the government, by Clark County officials in the Nevada case. And so we don't have access to the perfect information. The government does. And they have a responsibility when we raise these concerns to look into it. And they're dismissing it outright and they're trying to run up the clock.

So I was about to, that's exactly what I was going to say. So you get an order for access and then the access they give you is non-productive because like you said, it's a tour of the facilities, which does not really tell you what you need. So then the question is, now you've got to go back to court, which it sounds like you are, to get the access specific. So the judge has to say, no, no, no, they get to check the machines. They get to look at the calibration of the machines.

They get to understand the machines. So that takes two or three more days and you're inching closer and closer to December 8th and ultimately December 14th. That's what's going on there, it sounds like. But you've got a team that's staying on top of it because now you've got the situation in Arizona, new lawsuit being filed in Georgia, two in Wisconsin, we still have the state from Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court. So there's a lot going on there.

But let's get into this other... So Rick, you have to go back to the judge to say, hey, wait, you didn't order us to get a tour. You said we could get into these machines and that's what you're going back to the judge to get so that the experts can review them?

Yeah, so that we can have experts in the field of artificial intelligence and data processing to be able to look at the details. I mean, look, again, I can't emphasize enough that this is the Harry Reid machine in Clark County. They know how to delay. I mean, the individual who's in charge of the voting in Clark County, the register of voters, we've tried to put, again, a judge allowed us to depose certain people and to seek the information. The judge said, go ahead and depose 15 people. He was one of them that we wanted to depose, the register of voters. He literally has been staying in this house, avoiding us and delaying us for many days, again, pushing on this deadline. They know the game.

We were only able to depose him yesterday after trying to serve him for five days. They know what they're doing when they try to run out the clock here. And so I think that it's not fair when people say, well, I don't see any evidence of fraud. When we don't have the ballots or the envelopes to prove any of this, we have the suspicions and the affidavits from people coming forward. It is up to our government to be able to come clean, be transparent so that we all have a belief that the election is credible. And I think what we're finding is that the government is trying to avoid these discussions. They're trying to run out the clock.

Let me just give you one quick example here. I know we want to move on. But, you know, a county commissioner's race in Nevada was thrown out by politicians who said we don't have faith in this in this election. It was too close and there could have been fraud. And so let's throw out the whole race. We began to use that information with the judge to say, look, there's one race on the ballot, the same ballot where Trump Biden is on that was thrown out. One hundred and fifty eight thousand ballots in Clark County by the Democrat controlled register of voter and county commissioners because they didn't have faith in this local election being fair, only to find after we started using it to say, wait a minute, if you threw out one race, why not throw out all of them?

They scrambled. And on Tuesday, the politicians said, you know what, let's just call this race and say that the guy who won won and they didn't check. They didn't do anything different. They flipped from saying that the race was not able to be used. We should do a new one because of potential fraud.

And then flipped into immediately saying, oh, well, that Democrat won and let's move on. And there's no fraud there. They didn't check for fraud. They didn't do anything different. They just politically changed their mind on the race.

All right. You served, Rick, as the acting director of national intelligence, in addition to the ambassador to Germany. Bill Barr has changed the status of John Durham from U.S. attorney to special counsel. How do you view this in light of that investigation?

It seems to be focusing more laser beam phobic, focusing on crossfire hurricane that was the spying on the Trump campaign. Yeah, I'm glad that he did this. And let's also be very clear, he did this before the election. He made clear that it was done a couple of weeks before the election. So regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, this was a move that Bill Barr did.

He felt it was necessary. I think having transparency in Washington is a really good thing and having agencies that are pushed to open up, not overclassify information, to share so that the public can learn exactly what happened, especially in this Durham investigation, I think is really important to protect Durham, protect the integrity of this process. And by the way, it's only going to help both Republicans and Democrats to see the truth and to have more faith in our government institutions. No one should be afraid of greater transparency. And if you are afraid of greater transparency, then that's suspicious. You know, I think, Rick, on this point specifically, people have said, you know, when is anything going to happen here?

When is anything going to happen here? And we've had, you know, we have the Adam Schiff's in the past that said, you know, if you try to fire the special counsel to President Trump, we'll just reinstitute an independent counsel and then you can't fire them. I mean, there is the risk, of course, that if Joe Biden gets in, that they could try to remove a special counsel. But it is fraught with a lot more of political, I guess, political damage. I'm not saying Joe Biden and his team wouldn't do that.

And of course, Adam Schiff will shift on that, as Shifty Schiff usually does. But I think it's just for our folks out there, they've just been waiting. And I think, you know, from being on the inside of the Intel world that it is very difficult even for these prosecutors to get the info out because you were talking about running out the clock before.

I think the same thing was happening with a lot of these agencies trying to run out the clock on Durham. Look, I think it's fundamentally important for democracies to have an independent system, the rule of law, where people can petition an independent judiciary and go to court and challenge the rules of government and to be able to have an individual stand up to the government in an independent forum. That is a fundamental right. And it's something that we in America should be very proud that we have. I am concerned that we're growing with our prosecutions more political.

And that would include Durham in there. My concern is, is that the Durham investigation needs to be completely free of politics, that he needs to be free to look at the information and decide independently. A lot of people who know him, I do not know him, but a lot of people who know him say that he is a very good prosecutor, that he's independent. So I want to give him space and not have political pressure from either Republicans or Democrats for him to hurry it up or to rush something.

I'm just as frustrated as everybody else that it's not coming, but I've got to be able to make decisions and push towards greater independence, not have political prosecutions, because I think we're having problems. Maybe a little bit more anxious than we are because you know a lot more than we know. I mean, let's just be honest. You know a lot more went on with that, and I'm not going to ask.

That would not be appropriate, but you know a lot more than we'll ever know. Thanks for being with us again, Rick, special advisor to the ACLJ, also helping in the Nevada reelection efforts there. We're going to be back from the break.

We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. You know, your support of the ACLJ really means something because people like Rick Rinnell are part of this team. So I want to encourage you to support. We're in our last month of our matching challenge.

I do have to say this, though. November, folks, you came through and we're speechless. The amount of support we were up, I mean, I think it was close to 120%. 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, 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. 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 Jay Sekula Live.

This is Jordan Sekula. We are taking your phone calls. 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110.

I want to get you some of your calls now. We've updated you on the election. Listen, we're going to continue to update you on that. I'll be on Newsmax later on today and in the morning to continue to update people because a new filing is expected to come later today in Georgia. We have the latest from the President in Wisconsin that is alleging again that the laws weren't followed and that the relief sought should go to the legislature. We have another lawsuit in Wisconsin that says all these absentee ballots you corrected on your own election officials.

But in the law, you're supposed to call people, give them the opportunity to correct them, and then it's up to them to do that. 220,000 ballots we're talking about in Wisconsin. Guess who used mail-in voting more than the other side? The Democrats.

Biden. So we don't exactly know who those people voted for, but I almost guarantee that those 220,000 were tossed out. 220,000 were tossed out that Trump takes the state. So, I mean, you've got, again, yes, to that state.

That's a huge amount of votes. This is what you're starting to see. The same thing going in Georgia. You've got the Secretary of State now finally realizing there was an election. This is what you're starting to see.

The same thing going in Georgia. You've got the Secretary of State now finally realizing there was potential fraud. And so he's finally looking into that group that was started by Stacey Abrams and then taken over by Warnock for illegal activity. That's the words he used, fraud. So, again, that was after Bill Barr's statement. After all, this is a Secretary of State who's basically called everybody crazy and said, oh, everybody's hurting my feelings. Stop hurting my feelings as a public official. Now he's saying that they're investigating fraud. Surprise, surprise. It's like Rick said. It was fraud for the Democrat election in Clark County.

They've had 160,000 votes, but they counted those votes towards the President. Let's go ahead and take Paris online, too. Hey, Paris, calling from North Carolina. Welcome to JCEC.

You're alive. Thank you guys so much for the work that you're doing. There's lots of people that I can know that I've spoken to directly that are praying for y'all, praying for our country, praying for our President, his legal team. Mine is more of a statewide question in regards to the governor's, what we consider unconstitutional executive orders. And I know of churches and small businesses that do want to stand up and they don't know how to find legal representation and they feel like they'll be swallowed up by the system. Well, look, I mean, Calvary Chapel in California didn't get swallowed up by the system. We're representing them and now the Supreme Court order is going to directly impact them. Harvest Rock Church in California did not get swallowed up by the system. The Supreme Court just issued an order in their favor. The Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Church in Illinois, they didn't get swallowed up by the system. They just got a great order from the Supreme Court in the United States. So go to ACLJ.org to our helpline and get those churches to fill it out and we can get them representation. Because, Harry, the court is making it clear here on this religious liberty issue. They could not be clearer.

Absolutely. And the court is simplifying the cases because it issued a major order last week in the New York case. And now it's following that up with one paragraph orders in California, more likely than not, with respect to the 20 lawsuits involving houses of worship that are currently pending, the Supreme Court can issue some summary orders with respect to those cases. And as new cases are filed, guess what? Then district courts and courts of appeals, they will catch on to what the Supreme Court effectively has said and some of these cases can be settled perhaps without ever going to the United States Supreme Court. And that's what we do now is we just take the court order and we march it around the country. So folks, if you've got issues on this and you're a church and you're trying to figure out how you're going to function, contact us. ACLJ.org, help.

You do it right online. Fan Bennett in Washington. With COVID, things are still moving. People need to understand that and our teams are fully engaged. Yeah, still moving. And in fact, the President has been active on this today, Jade, still engaging with Speaker Pelosi, still engaging with the United States Senate, looking to move another package, another stimulus relief package.

But, Jay, I just want to echo something you said a minute ago, just in case people mentioned this. You mentioned the states of California, Illinois and New York. Can you think of more unfriendly jurisdictions where this decision that came down is now applicable?

California, Illinois and New York. Not exactly red states, Jay. No, this is, listen, I'm thrilled with the Supreme Court news and I'll tell you what it tells me. Amy Barrett is a force to be reckoned with and Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are now the center of the power base, if you will, of the conservative movement on the court. Conservative judicial philosophy. It makes John Robert, he could have ended up in perpetual dissent here.

I don't know. I think it might be on the religious liberty issues like this, where you have a federal constitutional protection. It should always trump state actions.

Always. And now finally, we have a five-justice majority who agrees that the Free Exercise Clause actually means something. That's something new since 1970. Yeah.

No, this is a big, big win. Barbara in California on Line 3. Hey, Barbara, welcome to JCEC. Last call of the day. Barbara, go ahead. You're on the air. Hello.

I appreciate you guys so much. But can the Supreme Court also protect businesses in California? Does the Constitution protect them?

They call them non-essential. This governor here, Newsom, we are done with him. We have over 800,000 signatures to recall him. We need 1.5.

We're done with him, though. And can the Constitution protect small businesses? So it's not as clear as saying we have the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. And business is not.

Small business, large business. I think, though, there is a claim to be made to this court now that we see how they're ruling on the issue of Free Exercise Religion is that if you're going to allow these big-box stores, basically, not to beat up on them, but if you're going to allow grocery stores to open and let people in the store, if you're going to allow Walmart to open and let people in, then the small business should be treated the same way. And there's an equal protection claim that could be made there at a federal level.

I think that's exactly right. So it would not be under the religion clauses of the First Amendment. It's not as clear cut. No, it's not as clear cut. But Harry, I think there's a legitimate equal protection argument that could be made by these small businesses. I think you're precisely correct.

And I think Jordan's analysis is spot on. It's clear beyond question that in many jurisdictions, the states are treating different businesses differently. And so in some states, they are making arbitrary and capricious decisions with respect to which businesses are called essential. And so to the extent that that's going on, then that provides a legal and constitutional basis to challenge the decision in federal court. And I certainly would applaud smaller businesses when and if they challenge state decisions that basically allow large businesses to operate and perhaps expose hundreds of people, if not thousands of people per day, and then they're saying to a small business owner, guess what? You need to stand down.

Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. All right, let me encourage you to do this. Support the work of the ACLJ. We are in the very beginning of our monthly challenge for December. So any amount you donate to us at ACLJ.org is matched. And it's matched until December 31st. So we had an unbelievably great month in November. December's had a great start. So your support of the ACLJ supports this broadcast on radio, on TV, on YouTube, on Twitter.

I mean, on multiple platforms. Of course, ACLJ website. And then, of course, also the legal work around the world. ACLJ.org to have your gift double.

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.