The travel ban case says you can’t look at an official’s un-revoked statements demonstrating religious animus in deciding whether his act is constitutional—no matter how blatant and central to his policy. The wedding cake case says you must—no matter how equivocal and marginal.
-
-
(All the references to Casey in the opinion already seem pretty ridiculous and it doesn't seem that hard to find one that fits the criteria from NIFLA.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.