We're back with another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Jasinski,
culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on Twitter at fdr LST.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast into the premium version of
our website as well. Today, I'm really honored to be joined by Kristen
Wagner. She is the CEO and president and General Council of Alliance Defending Freedom.
She also argued the successful case three or three Creative. You likely remember
we talked a lot about that a couple of weeks ago. But Kristen,
thank you so much for joining the show and congratulations on that case. Well,
thank you, and thanks for having me of course, great ADF victory,
and you also order you also argued master P for ADF and for Jack
Phillips. I want to get into all of that because there's an interesting sort
of arc from Masterpiece to three h three. But maybe the best way to
start here is just if you could tell us a little bit about how you
and ADF ended up connecting with Laurie Smith here. Well, Laurie Smith had
a front row seat to the aggressive prosecution by Colorado of Jack Phillipson Masterpiece Cake
Shop, and that began in two thousand and twelve, and Laurie wanted to
be able to expand her her website business into creating custom wedding websites that promoted
her faith view of marriage, which is marriage between a man and a woman.
And as she was watching what Colorado was doing with Jack Phillips, and
she told her pastor that she was planning to expand her business into wedding websites.
Her pastor was actually the one that connected her to Alliance Defending Freedom.
He said, you know, I'm concerned that what's happening with Jack Phillips and
Masterpiece Cake Shop that you would be putting yourself in legal jeopardy, So I
think you should seek some advice, and he actually let her know about adf
Okay, that's so interesting, and actually it gets to some of what we're
going to talk about in a moment. But if you could about the sort
of origins of the case and where the media's head has gone on all of
that, But if you could also just tell us a little bit about the
basic facts of the case, there's absolutely nobody more qualified to do that other
than you because you actually argued it. But just to kind of catch people
up to speed, maybe first on what she was watching with Masterpiece another case
again that you argued and what it was being kind of stress tested, but
stress tested actually cheapens it actually tested in three oh three. Yes, yes,
I mean it's it's been checking to see how the least head to have
absolutely exploded over the modern concept of reaffirming free speech, but it's been rising
even for us. In terms of Lorie's case, Lorie was a part of
She actually worked for the state of Colorado designing websites. She worked in a
sort of in the private sector, and just found that she wanted to be
able to have her own business and to create websites that included projects she was
passionate about and that she wouldn't have to promote ideas or projects that she didn't
believe in, and so she opened her own business, which was three or
three Creative. She's a native to Colorado. Three or three is Denver's first
area code, which is where that comes from. And in starting the business
in two thousand and sixteen, well, I should say the case started in
two and sixteen. She started much earlier in the business, and when she
wanted to expand that business to extend into weddings, she again saw what was
happening with Jack Phillips and became concerned that Colorado might prosecute her. So she
actually filed her lawsuit challenging Colorado's law before the Supreme Court even heard Jack Phillip's
case, which is something that most people don't know of. So those cases
we're going on at about the same time and have now extended over the last
decade. So we're thrilled with the wind and happy to go into that more.
I'll just say in terms of Laurie herself, she serves everyone. She
has clients who identify from all walks of life, including existing clients that identifies
LGBT. But she has never been willing to design websites that promote ideas and
projects that violate her beliefs or that she thinks are unhelpful or unloving to her
neighbor. And yeah, I have a lot of questions about you know,
they want to get into in a little bit about like the ACLU and where
they stood on this. And you have a great up ed in Bloomberg with
Nadine Strawson. But we'll get to in just a second. What is the
I guess that is interesting. I hadn't realized that she filed before Jack's case,
was I mean, that's I actually didn't know that. But that is
really well, it seems really important. And also it seems important is this
question of standing, and this gets into the false media narrative, and this
was a whole fake controversy gended up by a national I'm sorry, a New
Republic article after the case. But on that point, there was a question
about and some people anticipated maybe descents would get into this question of standing.
But Laurie's standing is it rooted in interpretations or Colorado's interpretations of its own law
as they related to Jack Phillips. Am I write on that I'm probably watching
it in some way, but it is part of the question. Oh,
you're not watching it at all. I think that is important to understand.
First of all, is that Laurie's case is a pre enforcement challenge, and
what that means is that when in Jack Phillips case, Colorado came after him,
they threatened the loss of you know, most of what he owns.
He asked us agnificant portion of his business during the pendency of the case,
because he was a defendant in the case. When Laurie saw what was happening
and she said, I don't want to wait to be a defendant. I
want the court to clarify my rights so that I don't put myself in legal
jeopardy. And the law allows that, and that's what's called the pre enforcement
challenge. The Laurie is a plaintiff, she sued Colorado, rather than being
put in the position of facing punishment from Colorado. So a pre enforcement challenge
is a staple of civil rights litigation. The Left has historically used it significantly
in all kinds of different areas. And it's just incontrovertible that this exists because
we believe in America that you have the right as an American to challenge an
unjust law without putting yourself in legal jeopardy. And in the course of that,
the way that you prove standing is essentially to prove that there's a credible
threat of enforcement against you, that there's a credible threat the government might use
this law to punish what you're asking to do. And that's an easy test
for Laurie to meet, as we've already mentioned, because they're literally punishing Jack
Phillips, trying to the most aggressive state in the nation in that moment to
punish someone that has the same beliefs that Laurie has. In addition, another
way that the court looks at it is to say, is the government disavowing
the law? Is the government telling the court, oh, don't worry,
nothing to see here, we are not going to prosecute this plaintiff. And
Colorado did the opposite in this case. For seven years, they have fought
this tooth and nail, and they have said they would go after Laurie if
she created website celebrating her face teaching on marriage, she would be required to
also celebrate custom websites that have same sex weddings in them. So it's not
even a question on the law. And we can get into the facts later
on that. But the law is very clear that she had standing, which
is why not one of the twelve appellate judges that what did this case ever
thought there was an issue of standing? And this is where the false narrative
enters the picture. And again it really started at least maybe you saw something
different, but since you're on the inside of this. From the outside,
it seemed like that New Republic article really kicked off a news cycle of very
smug and sort of condescending mockery on behalf of not just the left, but
a lot of people who purport to be like neutral in media running articles saying
that Laurie's case is undercut by the fact that, you know, if you
call this man who submitted a complaint that was listed in the lawsuit or a
request I'm sorry for a website for a gay wedding that was listed in the
lawsuit, he says he had first he heard of it, and he had
never he's married to a woman, and blah, blah blah. And there
was this, you know, narrative that Laurie Smith's case was fake and all
of this. But I mean, everything you already explained sort of undercuts that
too. But I just wanted to get your thoughts on how that news cycle
took off. You have a great up ed in the journal with your calling
Aaron Holly on all of this, but it gets into kind of the nitty
gritty details. But what on earth happened with that media cycle. Well,
we knew they would come out with something if the court decided to affirm the
time honored principle that free speech applies to everyone, and assumed that it would
be something about the pre enforcement challenge because they especially didn't like that, again
ignoring the fact that Laurie's case has been going on nearly, you know,
before Jack's case was even decided. But what I didn't expect is them to
use this situation involving Mike and Stewart so for the listeners. The day after
Laurie filed her case, she received a request for custom wedding website and some
other materials to be created for a wedding between Mike and Stewart. And that
came in through her website through a form that comes in an electronic request,
and it included the names, It included an email, and it included phone
number and a website. So obviously looked very legit, and Laurie included in
a separate motion later that that request had come in and that's all she said
was, I received this request through my website, well, just a couple
of days before the Supreme Court ruled in Laurie's case. Seven years later,
this activist calls Stewart and Stuart now claims that he never made the request,
never mind that he's still at the same number, it's his name, and
that after the ruling came out he suggested that what Laurie had done was terrible.
I can't remember his exact words, but essentially he was very much against
Laurie winning this case. So my suspicion is he's too embarrassed to own up
to the fact that he was making a request and essentially got caught. But
nonetheless, the activist is claiming that because this wasn't a legitimate quote unquote request
for a real wedding, that the case was built on some sort of false
narrative, which is just not true because standing has to be established on the
day you file a case, not the day after, so one that makes
zero sense too. Under pre enforcement challenge, you don't have to have a
request, that's the whole point. The whole point is that you don't want
to wait until you get the request and then decline it because that puts you
in violation of the law. So another reason it makes absolutely no sense to
suggest that. And then finally, the left is tried to fault Laurie because
she didn't actually call Stuart to verify that this was a real wedding, as
if Stuart would have owned up to it in that moment. But the reason
that she couldn't follow up demonstrates the whole point of a pre enforcement challenge.
Jack Phillips had the same thing happened to him On the day the Supreme Court
agreed to hear his first case. He had a call from a transgender attorney
and that attorney asked for a gender transition cake that violated Jack's fate, and
he spoke to him, declined the request, and three weeks after we won
at the Supreme Court, Colorado prosecuted Jack a second time. So there was
no requirement for this request to come in. No judge ever relied on it
because it wasn't a requirement. And second, it would have been irresponsible for
Laurie to follow up in some way seeing what Colorado had done. When Jack
followed up on that kind of a request, Oh, that's a that's super
super interesting. And this, yeah, I have a question, just as
a journalist, sounds to me like the New Republic piece, which was attempted
to kind of break this news was never news to begin with. It actually
sounds sort of like journalistic malpractice, that there's nothing newsworthy whatsoever, because in
the day after it's filed, you have the preemptive already a situation that's,
as you said earlier, staple of civil rights litigation, and that all of
that suggests to me that the journalist didn't care to consider the facts and how
they might have undercut the narrative, and all of those other outlets that ran
with the narrative and promulgated the narrative either didn't take maybe they didn't even reach
out to a DF or when they did, didn't take that seriously enough,
didn't reach out to balanced experts. Because as a journalist, if you're digging
into the story and you're pursuing the facts without any sort of bias clouding your
judgment or you know, actually putting truth ahead of any kind of narrative,
it seems to be like you would hit a brick wall and just say this
isn't newsworthy. It has to be really frustrating from your vantage point to watch
journalism like that snowball. It's not just frustrating, it's I don't even know
that they have words at this point, still processing that in the sense that
you know, to see in a headline. For example, Newsweek ran with
the headline something to the effect of attorneys facing possible disbarment and criminal penalties.
What's according to us who litigated the case. I mean, it's the most
irresponsible, willful, ignorance, medium outpractice that I have ever seen. And
it's all to delegitimize the Supreme Court. And now I'm even hearing that there
may be follow up pieces that you know, New York Public is more about
being a laptist activist than reporting the news. It is just it's malpractice and
frankly, we're looking into it closely. The washed Aldom Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your walt. As Biden continues to tout his bidomics plan,
does any of it sound familiar? How about the Soviet style five year
plan? State run capitalism is not capitalism. Command and control economics fails every
time it's tried. Bidonomics equals chinonomics. Whether it's happening in DC or down
on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially. Be informed. Check out the
Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski on Apples, Spotify or wherever you
get your podcast. Yeah. Absolutely, It's just it's one of those things
where like when you know the facts of a situation in the media reports on
them, it gives you a great window into how corrupt and broken the media
is because you see it up close and personal. Another question I have is
about, as you said, doing this kind of proremptively is a staple of
civil rights litigation, and it reminds me of your op ed with Nadine Strawson.
It's in Bloomberg, you write, consistent with the free speech Golden Rule,
this decision ensures that an LGBTQ website designer can't be forced to create a
website criticizing same sex marriage. But this case also protects speech for being on
the marriage contexts. A democratic artist need not designed posters promoting the Republican Party,
nor must a videographer who supports Robe Wade film a pro life rally.
And what sort of baffling about the media narrative here, And I'm sure the
case in general, the media narrative about the case in general. The less
reaction to the case in general is they seem to be forgetting the history of
civil rights litigation and just on this question of testing laws preemptively or protecting rights
pramptively. Is it surprising to you that none of that came up, the
history of that didn't come up in the media coverage of Laurie's standing in that
case. Absolutely, I mean again, I think it's just willful ignorance to
it. And you know, what we can say is that the United States
Supreme Court reaffirmed a time on or principle that free speeches for everyone, the
government can't force you to say things that you don't believe, and it simply
applied that principle to cultural moment. And when we can look back at previous
culture moments, even at the height of the civil rights movement, we never
the government never compelled artistic expression or ideological speech, and it certainly shouldn't do
so. Now, I imagine you've spent a lot of time thinking about how
the ACLU of your for all of the faults it may have had, became
the a CLU of today. And of course you're writing with Nadine Stratton in
this case. But the ACLU was on the other side of three or three
creative in the most baffling way. And again, I'm sure this is a
question you've spent a lot of time thinking about over the years. What is
your best explanation for what happened to the left free speech protectors? What happened
to the civil libertarians who purport to love free speech but fell on the other
side of this case. I mean, the only thing I can think of
is sort of a cancel culture moment, is cowardice that comes into play over
time, that it's the subject matter. But again, the First Amendment is
big enough to protect the lesbian photographer as much as the Catholic calligrapher. And
if we give up on that idea, which is also something required by the
First Amendment, we are handing the government this unfettered authority, and the political
and cultural win shipped. And that was the whole point of that abed in
Bloomberg Law with Nadine Strasson's Nadine used to be the president of the ACLU,
and we disagree on many different issues ideologically, but the importance of free speech
is one that we should be able to align on on the left and the
right. And you know, as Nadine made the point many times to me,
in the course of our conversations, in our drafts. It is the
world in which we live where today's heresies become tomorrow's orthodoxies, and we ought
to take heed that that is the world in which we live, which is
why the First Amendment is so important. Yeah, it's hard to understand,
especially you make these very obvious points. A democratic artist need not designed posters
promoting the Republican Party, And it just seems to be lost on people who
claim to promote free speech and be civil libertarians. And I guess, on
the one hand, maybe it's it's mostly the media's fault for misinforming willfully misinforming
many, many people about the facts of the case so that they have a
very different idea. You know, they think Laurie was just turning gay customers
away for being gay, as opposed to like the actual facts of the case.
What did you make of the descents? That has to be as somebody
who argues in front of the Supreme Court, that has to be one of
the most frust frustrating aspects when a decision goes your way, is reading the
disense. What did you make of them in this case? Well, you
know, sometimes when I read descents. I'm like, oh, this is
good in the sense that they bring up the best arguments about the case.
And I mean it is an advocate. You know what you're what those points
are, and you are prepared to address them. And we did, which
is why we have six votes. But in reading Justice Son of Myrs descent,
I mean she's writing on a different case. Most descent has nothing to
do with the legal issue at hand. It simply reinforces the history of public
accommodation laws, which we wholeheartedly agree with. Public accommodation laws though have coexisted
with the First Amendment for years, and the Court's decision doesn't weaken those laws
at all. In fact, it says that they are still applicable. That
you can't deny people's service because of a protected characteristic and you can't compel speech
because of the message. As Justice Scorsage points out in the majority, those
are very different, different reasons for declining. One is what the messages and
the other is who the person is. And I would just say too,
in terms of comparing the majority in the discent, someone told me, and
I haven't actually counted for myself, but someone suggested that seventeen times. Justice
Scorsage cited the facts of the case seventeen times, and Justice Sotomayor cited the
facts of the case and her descent zero times. That tells you all you
need to know about the credibility of the descent. Okay, So I have
another question that I feel just silly asking, but I'm curious how that happened.
How does somebody who is you know, qualified legal minds so much that
they're nominated to the Supreme Court, confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court,
listens to you give the facts of the case. Maybe this is an overly
psychological question, but I mean, just somebody who's there at the Supreme Court
being questioned and has done it before. How on earth does Justice Sotomayor end
up writing a descent that is basically about another case. Because I think if
you write on this case, it's an easy answer, it's an easy win.
As I mentioned, the government has never been able to compel speech ever
in our history. It not even at the height of the Civil rights movement.
The First Amendment has protected all kinds of speech, even speech that all
of us would agree is offensive. We've protected it because we've realized that the
First Amendment follows the golden rule that if you want freedom for yourself, you
have to extend it to those you disagree with, and the choice, the
only other choice, is to give the power to the government. And if
we look abroad, we see that those who don't have free speech, they
don't have other freedoms as well. You know, the First Amendment is one
strong aspect of how we curb government authoritarianism. Otherwise the government can silent discent,
and that's the first thing it does is try to silence discent. So
I can't speak to how she could write something like that other than I think
that every American should read The Majority and the Descent is easy reading. It's
not that long, and it just tells you all you need to know.
I think absolutely what is the I know you guys, you're doing a lot
of work in Europe, obviously a lot of work in the United States.
What is the next kind of frontier in Are there any cases on your guys's
docet that you think people should be paying attention to, any laws that you're
particularly challenging or you think are the biggest threats going forward in religious liberty cases?
What's next really for ADF in this fight. Well, we do have
an entire international division that works around the world, and having just done a
retreat with them, I can tell you what was so surprising to me is
as they're listing out their priorities and I'm looking at the US priorities, those
priorities are pretty much the same in the sense that we are seeing global censorship.
Governments use censorship to silence descent around the world, and that is of
significant concern here in the United States, and that we are the last western
country in the world that is resisting the type of government censorship that we see
in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, the very last country
in the world. And then I look over at what the international team is
doing. They're going to trial next month in a case involving Pibe Rossman.
It's her second trial. She won the first, but in Finland, where
she's a member of parliament, a prosecutor can appeal a victory and continue to
prosecute you. And basically she's been prosecuted because she tweeted out some Bible verses
in an objection to her church sponsoring a pride parade, and now she's facing
criminal prosecution for it in Finland. So we're seeing this global censorship play out
around the world. And again I just want to emphasize here in the US
we have always been the leader in protecting these inalienable rights, and right now
we're the last man standing and we need to continue to do so. And
we're so thankful that the Supreme Court issued this ruling to protect free speech here.
Yeah. Absolutely, How is Laurie doing in the wake of all of
this? I mean just a deluge of media attentions, certainly, and I
can only imagine given how passionate, passionate people are about this particular issue,
some of it has been brutal to be on the receiving end of. But
do you know how Laurie has been in the wake of the decision. I
was with her at this weekend, and I think that her spirits are up,
but it has been a rock two weeks. I've never seen a client
face so many threats and threats to her life, threats to her physical safety,
just the type of hate that has come her way, largely in response
to the media's irresponsible coverage of her case, including the New Republic. There
are you know, I think the New Republic is continuing to try to continue
its story or its scoop, and that's deeply concerning because it's just bult in
what they're suggesting. So it's been rough, and it's been shocking to me
to see even the difference between where we're at right now in twenty twenty three
and where we were when Jack won his case. Now, he won his
case on the basis of the free exercise of religion in twenty and eighteen,
but even the elevation or escalation of the threats here against LORI are just so
concerning. And yet on the other hand, I think it demonstrates how broad
the victory is in protecting speech for everyone. Now, there's some of my
colleagues, when I mentioned you were coming on the podcast, wanted me to
ask about the future of Bostock interpretations. A lot of people, as I'm
sure you know better than I do, in the conservative movement and especially the
conservative legal movement, have a lot of concerns about the ongoing challenges posed by
Justice Gorsich's Bostock decision. In fact, one of my colleagues actually asked the
hypothetical if the military decided to draft women or decided to reinstate the draft.
Would Bostock require the military to draft women? I know that's a very specific
hypothetical, but in general, is there a reason to be concerned about these
ongoing uses and interpretations of that decision? Well, there's two questions there.
One was a hypothetical and the second one was your last question, which is
there reason to be concerned? And I would answer them differently. So I
would say there is reason to be concerned. We believe that Bostock was wrongly
decided, and we are having to litigate all around the edges of that decision
right now because of the chaos that has resulted from it. But on the
other hand, we can look at that decision that justice scores a trot and
in that decision he talks about it applying in a very specific circumstance and employment.
When a decision is made solely on the basis of sex and no other
no other characteristics or distinctions can be made there. So I do think that
Bostock reserved the principle of when there are legitimate biological distinctions to be made between
the sexes, the government can make those distinctions, and in fact should so.
In your hypothetical, the military, I think makes a legitimate biological distinction
between the sexes when it's determining who who can draft and who can serve in
which positions. I think that's what you're also seeing play out in the sports
litigation, which we have a number of cases across the United States, and
also you'll see it play out in other areas involving this warped gender identity ideology
that is essentially being put into the law by activists. Yeah, there's so
much of that. It has to feel sometimes like playing whackamle, like what's
you do and you've dealt with Colorado and now you have to deal with Connecticut
or another sting. I mean, it just it's probably overwhelming. Is there
a concerted effort on the left to I mean, obviously people see this when
it comes to like criminal justice reform, but on the left to come up
with laws like you know, the ones in Colorado or in other parts of
the country that create challengers for people like Laurie and Jack Phillips. How sort
of coordinated as the left for their big groups that are pushing to get these
laws changed in these laws in place, and it has to be I guess
this is more of a statement than a question that has to be really hard
to keep up with. It is, I mean, thankfully, we have
a large team and it continues to grow up by the day. We have
about four hundred and fifty team members, and you know, we're active in
courtrooms across the United States and again around the world, but also in state
legislatures, and we're seeing how people in their own states can do things to
protect women and girls from this dangerous ideology. We have twenty two states now
that have passed laws similar to our model bill on recognizing legitimate distinctions between men
and women, particularly in athletics, which I think that the left saw is
kind of the low hanging fruit to begin with. And so again ensuring that
we all understand it's okay to recognize legitimate distinctions between the sexes and that the
law should infect do so, and if we don't, it's women and girls
who are going to suffer the most. I mean, we'll all suffer,
but women and girls will suffer the most. So this is a fight worth
having, and we're privileged to be a part of it. I'm thankful every
day. It is whack a mole in some ways, but I think we're
also we have a strategy as well. We are outgunned and we are outnumbered,
but we do have an alliance. We do have a strategy, and
we're seeing victories. I mean, you may have seen we've had the first
win this year on women's sports in the BPJ case out of West Virginia after
a trial. We just had a win in the Sixth Circuit in a Tennessee
case involving stopping the permanent and irreversible harm to children in medical transitions of children.
So my hope is we're turning the corner and the American public is beginning
to see the harms of this dangerous ideology and they're going to reject it.
I want to ask about this is a tweet from someone you know, David
French, who tweeted maybe a couple of weeks ago, an article that he
wrote with The New York Times, and his quote on the article was at
the exact time when religious liberty is enjoying a historic winning streak at the Supreme
Court, a cohort of Christians has decided that liberty isn't enough. It's power,
even more than freedom that they crave. This definitely represents I think a
sentiment among folks on the kind of never Trump right that conservatives are right now
just hungry for power. You know that it's it's a lurched towards authoritarianism.
And I just want to ask you, as somebody who works so closely on
these issues, if that's something. Are you picking up on this, this
alleged lust for power that conservatives who have been obviously I'm sort of betraying my
own opinion here, but beating up time and again legally and have had their
rights challenge just for being faithful Christians, for being faithful Muslims, for being
people of faith in general. Are you seeing that anything that concerns you that
people are sort of tilting towards authoritarianism at all? Or do you think that's
overblown? I do think it's overblown, and I think that you know it.
At ADF, we try to call balls and strikes. We don't have
a vested interested in where we're writing or publishing or you know, who we're
trying to curry favor with in the moment, and we will continue to do
so. So I do think that there are fringes on the left and on
the right, and for us what matters is that we follow the principles that
have made this nation great, and that is also grounded in the fact that
we're image prayers of God. We have inalienable rights. There are some things
the government just can't do, and we need to make sure that that stays
true. And so that's the way to protecting freedom is to follow those principles,
regardless of, you know, whether we agree with a particular speech or
not. So you will see a stand up for free speech even for those
that we disagree with. That's not an assertion or a craving of power.
That's based on principle. And I think what we're seeing from some commentators is
they suggest that it's about power when it is about principle, and it's just
not in vogue to recognize that that principle applies to both sides of a debate
any longer. My last question is one that I'm pretty sure I've asked you
before, but I'm still fascinated, intrigued by it, and that is just
how awesome is it to be arguing a case and from the Supreme Court?
I mean, what's it like? It has to be absolutely you know that
I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages has to be maybe overwhelming. You've done
it before those you're kind of an old pro in that sense. But what
is it, you know, just getting before them and arguing, what is
that like? It's amazing. I mean, it is just these are the
best in our nation and to be able to look them in the eye and
to make your case in front of them, to answer what For the most
part, most of them have very careful questions that are thought through that they
genuinely want answers to. To be in that position, it's just a very
high privilege. I will say. It takes a whole lot more preparation than
most people realize. And even in this particular instance, you know, to
have a case like this come before the court, it it requires so many
people, not just on the legal team, but in other areas to again
with the media, you know, willfully ignoring what the law is, to
try to get the word out in op eds and other things about what the
truth is. But lastly, I just want to say this, even more
so than the privilege of arguing before the Supreme Court, the highest privilege for
me and I know for those of us at ADF is to stand beside people
like Laurie Smith and Jack Billips. I assume it would be a privilege to
argue a breach of contract case in front of the Supreme Court, but the
privilege to stand beside and to represent an advocate for someone who loves everyone and
has such courage in this moment, and who's not just standing for herself but
standing for those who disagree with her. That's the ball game. I mean,
that's why you go to law school. Christ And I don't normally do
this, but I just with guests because it's showing too much biased. But
I just have to say I admire you, your work, your character so
much. Just an honor to get to talk to you after this big one
at the Supreme Court. ADF is an incredible hands under your leadership. Thank
you so much for coming on the show and for all that you do well.
Thank you for bringing truth into the public square. Emily, of course
that's the goal. Thanks so much, Kristen, thank you. You've been
listening to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Joshnski, culture
editor here at The Federalist. Back soon with more. Until then, the
lovers of freedom and Anxious in the O that you bought today, staring