Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Tuesday, June 30, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, we're coming to the end of the term, the annual term for the Supreme Court of the United States. And that's why we come to the last days of June. And what we have are some of the biggest decisions pending that are released by the court. And there's a reason for that. Part of it is the long tradition of the Supreme Court. Another part of it is that historically the justices of the Supreme Court have gone on a summer break. They basically not only left public sessions of the court, brought all of that to a formal end, but many of them go out of the Washington, D.C. area for at least part of the summer months that goes back all the way to the 19th century. You also have the fact that the court has to basically operate on a rhythm in which it has so many of the oral arguments early on in the year, which will begin early in the fall. And then you have the release of so many decisions, especially on big issues, in which you have a rather complicated process of writing. And of course, you have a majority opinion. And if it's a split opinion, you can have dissenting opinions as well or minority opinions. And so we're looking at the very end of June. And that means that, well, it turns out big decisions are going to be handed down both of the last two days of June. So yesterday, let's just look about four cases. And those four cases had to do with several very interesting issues. It can be argued, I think, that one of the most important of these was the decision that was handed down in a case about mail in voting or mail in ballots. This was a 5, 4 ruling. And the big issue here is that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, a conservative justice, basically sided with the three more liberal justices. And of course, it was all the way up to five, in which case the majority in this case, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion, said that it was not unconstitutional for the states to allow mail in ballots to be postmarked on Election Day. The argument that was coming from the Trump administration and from others is that that had put a level of uncertainty into the voting process that was unhealthy and basically wrong for a system of electoral politics. And I think, frankly, an awful lot of Americans would agree with the administration's argument here because it's very frustrating to have Election Day. And in so many cases, just take the State of California, as a graphic example, you sometimes have to wait for days in order to find out who actually won the balloting. In a state like California, you have the mail in process and then you have the fact that insofar as that ballot is postmarked on election day, well, you know how long it can take for mail to be delivered. Let's just not open that can of worms. But the fact is it is testing the limits of Democratic confidence. And of course, when it comes to the mail in voting, President Trump's had a very, very negative response to that. He's done it himself, by the way, but he has been very negative to it in terms of this impact, in terms especially of national elections. And of course, the president at the same time is pushing hard on Republicans, particularly in the Senate, for a voting reform bill that he favors, let's just say ardently. And I think it's also fair to assume that the vast majority of Americans want free and fair elections. That's what they want. The question is, how do you do that? And now you have complications such as all the computer revolution, the entire digital revolution. You also have the idea that was argued, and it was not just a one party argument going back, say over the last 30 years, that mail in balloting should be available to Americans qualified to vote, who might be prevented one way or another from getting to a polling place. And of course, all that was accelerated with the COVID 19 virus. And some would would say that's not even an accident, not that they brought the virus about, but that they took the advantage of the pandemic in order to bring about some of these changes. And what you also see is that once you have anything go into a less, let's just say physical presence based system, then at least a significant number of Americans think they ought to continue to have that right. And so you do have states that do this and you also have states that do not. That gets back to the fact that we still have in the main, a federal election system, which means that it is the states in our federal system who determine most of these things. Now, again, I think the state of California, to give one example, is endangering the integrity of our entire electoral system by allowing ballots to come in so late and then still to be counted. And then of course, you also open the situation to claims of some kind of interference or abuse. But this was a 5, 4 ruling. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett came back. It was really interesting that she says, look, Congress gets to set the rules at the federal level about such things and Congress has set the laws which are now in effect. In her decision, she said the election day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, that is win, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose. So again, that's not a liberal argument. It may come with a somewhat liberal effect, but that is actually a pretty conservative argument saying we're just looking at the words of the statute. But there were conservative justices who had nothing. They didn't want anything to do with that decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing in a dissent, said, quote, not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice and precedent, it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences. The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election law questions and risks further undermining Americans confidence in election integrity, end quote. I'll simply say that I'm in basic agreement with Justice Alito in this assessment. But Justice Alito was offering a dissent. He was in the 4 in the minority rather than in the 5 of the majority. I do think similar cases will come back and it is likely. This is not the last word on this issue. Another of the decisions handed down yesterday had to do with the power of the president of the United States to remove the people who were the heads of federal agencies. And so, for instance, in this case, which was known as Trump, President of the United States versus Slaughter, as the Washington Post says, quote, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump could fire the heads of independent agencies without cause, handing the president a major victory in his push to exert greater control over the federal bureaucracy and concentrate power in the White House, end quote. Okay, so let's just remind ourselves the Washington Post isn't getting to the constitutional issue here very fast. The constitutional issue is that our Constitution has three branches of government, not three and a half, not four. There is the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And so when you're talking about all these agencies in the federal government, they have to come under one of those three powers. And overwhelmingly, they come under executive authority. Okay, now hold that thought because we're going to get to another case, another decision in just a moment. That complicates that a bit. But in this case, the Supreme Court said, look, these agencies are in the executive branch. The executive branch puts the constitutional authority in the president of the United States. If the president of the United States does not have the authority to remove these administrative officers, then who would? So in other words, yes, this is a presidential power. That's the bottom line in this decision. It was a 6:3 decision. Once again, you have the conservatives predictably on one side and the more liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents on the other side. I like the way that Justin Juvenile of the Washington Post put it, saying, quote, the 6:3 ideologically divided ruling will usher in one of the largest changes to the operation of the federal government in decades and fulfills a major goal of the Trump administration and many conservatives who have long argued the president should exercise unfettered authority over the executive branch, end quote. I think that's a pretty good summary. Just in one paragraph. There was a third case. There were actually four. We'll talk about three first. This one has to do with a case that would, on the surface sound like it was the exact opposite of what we just dealt with. We just dealt with the case in which the supreme court, by a 6:3 majority, said that the President of the United States has the power to remove the directors of federal agencies, the leaders of those agencies. In the other decision, similarly, here's the headline. I'll go back to the Washington Post, same reporter. Here's the headline. Supreme Court, for now, blocks Trump from firing Fed board member Lisa Cook. Okay, this was a 54 decision. Remember, the other one was 6 3. And this one mixes up things a little bit because this had to do with President Trump's attempt to remove a democratically appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission. In this case, we are talking about Lisa Cook, and she had been appointed to the Commission for a one year term and then was given a 14 year term in 2023. This is one of those entities put together that is supposed to be something between what we have in terms of the three major branches of government. What you have here is pretty much the declaration of the existence of some kind of administrative state. But in this case, by the 54 majority, the Supreme Court said that the president did not have the right to oust an individual board member. I guess you could say the best way to summarize it would be without cause, and that would have to be through some kind of process. This is something that hasn't happened before. Justice Alito once again dissented, saying that the Supreme Court shouldn't even have taken up this case because the case brought by Lisa Cook, then as a former member of the Fed board, it had not worked its way through all the lower courts and instead ended up at the Supreme Court. The majority decided to take it. And it's going to be interesting to see how this comes back. This is probably not the last word in the fourth decision handed down yesterday, not getting as much attention. I think Politico has it right when they say the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people have an expectation of privacy from the government as their mobile devices track them throughout their daily activities, even when that information is shared with companies like Google and Apple. The case, which is Chatri v. The United States, has to do with whether or not Fourth Amendment protections extend to location information based upon your mobile device. And in this case, the justices said it does. It was a split decision again, in this case, a 6, 3 decision that's becoming quite, quite familiar. Politico has it right when it says the Trump administration argued that users did not have an expectation of privacy after voluntarily sharing their location data with companies like Google. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority, however, saying, quote, an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy and records about his cell phone's location and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information. And even though for only a limited time and from a third party tech company. Okay, wow. Why would this case come to the Supreme Court? Why are we even talking about it? Why is it important? It's important because of a bank robbery in Virginia in 2019. The police used location data from the suspect's cell phone in order to issue a warrant and then eventually to arrest him. He was convicted on the charge, but that required the police having access to that location information. Okay, now here's the argument that law enforcement is going to make. Look, if you are using a smartphone and you allow commercial companies to track your location, then how can you declare you have a right to privacy when it comes to law enforcement needing the same information? Now, I think that's a pretty cogent argument. I'll be honest. I think that if you surrender your location information to, to commercial entities, it's really hard to say that the law enforcement shouldn't have access to the same information. But that's exactly what the court said. So I don't think this is going to be the last word. Because the technological developments continue to unfold. I do think it's a good thing that the Supreme Court is standing up for individual liberty and for a right to privacy, which, after all, is central to the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. But there are still huge questions. There's no doubt they're going to remain huge questions about who is allowed and who is not allowed access to that information. I think, honestly, the vast majority of Americans, if, for one reason or another, might be likely to allow law enforcement to have such Access, certainly with granted permission. On the other hand, there are civil libertarians who would say absolutely no way, Absolutely no way that opens the door to a police state. I will say there are, I think, good arguments being made on both sides of this, which is the case in many decisions that come to the Supreme Court. If it were an easy question, it would have been handled at a lower level and everyone would have walked away. So the Supreme Court gets to decide which cases it takes. The four we just talked about came in on the second to the last day of the term. So just buckle your seatbelts. That means that today, the last day of June is going to include some absolutely massive cases. So let me just tell you, as we are anticipating the day ahead, we're talking about a case that has to do with birthright citizenship. It's hard to imagine a bigger case. And there is also coming now two cases on transgender athletes. They're coming from the states of West Virginia and Idaho on the transgender issue. This is going to be absolutely massive. And then one on campaign finance as well. I think it is the birthright citizenship and the transgender cases that are going to take up a great deal of the conversation today. And it is because those decisions are likely to be just as big as you think they might be. So we will be watching those with you. And wouldn't you know, they would take it all the way to the last day of June. But next, I want to get to an issue which is really big. It has huge history behind it, but it also has huge, well, diagnostic dimensions about the present. I'm talking about the decision now being announced in Great Britain about King Charles III recalibrating and redefining his role, which had been for centuries as defender of the Faith and Supreme Head of the Church of England, his constitutional role. Now, this can be renegotiated in Britain in various ways. The most important way would be the coronation language. And in taking the coronation language, King Charles III actually used the historic language. Okay, where did that language come from? Defender of the faith, supreme head of the Church of England. Where did that come from? It goes back to the 16th century. It goes back to the Reformation. It goes back to a fascinating story. That story has to do with the fact that King Henry VIII was a staunch defender of the papacy and of the Catholic cause until all of a sudden, he wasn't. And that was over, of course, the question of whether or not he could be granted an annulment in terms of his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He wanted to marry Anne Boleyn and this was a crisis. It led to a constitutional crisis, an ecclesial crisis between England and Rome, because the papacy did not cooperate with Henry's plan in terms of the marriage. So Henry decided to break with the long tradition of the Church of Rome being present in the Church of Rome, the Catholic Churches there in England, it was a Catholic state. Prince Henry, King Henry, as he later became, was himself known as a Catholic prince and as a Catholic king. And as a matter of fact, he had written the defense of the papacy that so impressed the papacy, his defense of the Catholic Church, that he was granted the title by the Pope of Defender of the Faith. Those words are all important. Defender of the Faith, those four words. And by the way, he kept that after he made the break with Rome and actually more or less joined the Reformation, creating a third tradition in terms of the Anglican tradition, establishing the Church of England. And the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. So this was a break with Rome. This became a part of the Reformation. This is very, very central to the Reformation that took place in the English speaking world. And it had a great deal to do with the redefinition of the entire British society and in particular the British throne now as something separate from the Vatican, separate from the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, King Henry, in establishing a new system in which you had a Church of England rather than the Church of Rome, and in which case he's now the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. He kept the Catholic title given to him by the Pope as Defender of the Faith. And that has gone through successive generations such that Queen Elizabeth ii, the mother of King Charles iii when she took the coronation oath, just absolutely embraced the role of Defender of the Faith and as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. And she gave evidence to the fact that she did identify very clearly as a Christian. All right, King Charles is a different individual, let's just put it that way. And from the beginning, even when he was the Prince of Wales, when he was not yet king, when he was just a prince, he was giving interviews indicating that he was very committed to what we can only call some kind of form of postmodern mysticism. And in that postmodern mysticism, well, let's just say it became evident in interviews he did, such as a very, I'll say famous or infamous interview he did with journalist Jonathan Demby. And he actually made the statement that he really didn't want to be the defender of the faith, because that means a specific faith. And that Means by the way, the faith confessed by the Church of England, which is the Protestant faith, which means Christianity, Protestant Christianity, and as particularly represented in the Church of England. Instead, he said he wanted to be the defender of faith. He said for the divine in everyone. He was just talking to this journalist, but this is loose talk. This is dangerous talk for someone who would later become the King of England and now he's following through with it. So for instance, you have headlines coming from England, King's role redefined to protect Multi Faith Nation. That's the news network known as msn. Okay, so there is something big going on here, at least in terms of what we're able to read. It does not appear that he is officially surrendering the coronation title Defender of the Faith, deciding instead to take the word the out as a definite article. Let's just say that would be a complete surrender. He is nonetheless adopting new language. Buckingham palace has announced that he will now define his role as being a defender of all faiths. And he defines his role as that within an evolving nation, a multi faith Britain. And at least a part of how this is being reframed by Buckingham palace is that the King's role will be specified as protecting the space for faith within the multi faith nation. Okay, so very quickly, this is an absolute disaster. It is just an absolute disaster. We are talking about the abdication of responsibility. We're talking about the fact that Henry VIII created the Church of England and separated it from the Church of Rome, particularly to make a theological statement, as well as of course, dealing with his marital challenges. But the fact is that Defender of the Faith is something that's been a part of the coronation titles. Prince Charles as a postmodern thinker, and by the way, he is. I had the opportunity to meet with him and even to discuss these issues in a group some years ago when he was still the Prince of Wales. And I can tell you he is absolutely committed to a kind of New age spiritual confusion. I'll just say in making that statement, I think I'm making it kindly. I wrote an article about this back in November of 2008. So in other words, I've been watching this a long time and in the meantime I've been collecting materials and then was in that meeting with the Prince. And I can simply tell you I think he absolutely means what he's saying. I think he absolutely believes in kind of a postmodern absolute mush. You could use the term New Age. I think that's very clear. There's kind of an eco theology behind his spirituality. But I think he's also, as someone who's very much in the cultural elites in Europe, they have an absolutely unrealistic understanding of anything that is truly theological. They just see it all as part of this giant kind of postmodern mush. But there is also something else going on here and that is that what you see in the case of many of these, and Prince Charles is at the top of this list, is that they have an absolute fascination with Islam, but it's an intellectual version of Islam that has very little to do with Islam on the ground. And just think of the headlines coming, the rape gang issues and the giant question about the ultimate allegiance of so many people by the millions who are now in the United Kingdom and with an Islamic identity. Just understand that I think King Charles is absolutely disconnected from reality in all of this. Now, back when a lot of this came up, and I'll go back to the early years of the 21st century, Prince Charles was talking about the Coronation oath out loud. In some of these interviews that didn't happen. But we are talking about a significant official document in Britain. It's known as the Sovereign Grant. And this is the report coming out, 2025, 2026. And it is explicitly leaving behind the Defender of the Faith title and as at least MSN's report says, acknowledging the United Kingdom's religious diversity. Listen to this quote. The change reflects the King's decades long commitment to interfaith engagement with communities across Britain, the Commonwealth and internationally, including Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Orthodox Christian and other traditions. He went on to say, quote, I've always thought of Britain as a community of communities. That has led me to understand that the Sovereign has an additional duty less formally recognized, but to be no less diligently discharged. It is the duty to protect the diversity of our country, including by protecting the space for faith itself and its practice through the religions, cultures, traditions and beliefs to which our hearts and minds direct us as individuals. You'll notice there that is a studious effort to declare absolutely no personal religious identity whatsoever. Let me just say, as an American, what this means is the Defender of the Faith title, in terms of any substance is out the window. I do want to make some comment about the fact that the end of June brings the end of what is known as Pride Month in the United States. Very interesting to see how it has operated at the cultural level this year. You have a headline, for instance, in the Monday edition of the New York Times. Pride March Caps off a Joyous June But Anxiety tempers Hope. Okay, so here's one of the big things going on. For the first time in terms of a modern progression on this issue, you have fewer Americans who are saying they're in favor of same sex marriage and some other of the major goals of the LGBTQ movement. You also have the T in LGBTQ really being singled out by Americans, a vast majority of Americans, as being problematic. They're not ready to see boys in the girls bathroom and all the rest. This is leading to a sense on the part of many in the gay rights movement, the LGBTQ activist movement, that they are losing some ground. And that shows up in this article. You also have the national press giving attention to the specific issue of gay marriage and pointing out that for the first time since its legalization, the support for it is going down, not up. This is another article by Sabrina Tavernese of the New York Times. Support for gay marriage is now declining, reversing a years long trend. Earlier this month, Gallup released a poll showing that Republican support for gay marriage now stood at 37%, a decline of 18 percentage points from a high in 2022. Support among independents declined too. Okay, so if you're following this, just understand that the narrative of the LGBTQ movement was inevitable forward progress for their agenda, the inevitable continued embrace, larger embrace of their sexual revolution and of their war on gender and all the rest. But it has hit some kind of obstacle now. I think at least a part of that obstacle is the pressure coming from the residual Christian conscience in this country. I think that has something to do with it. I think another big argument could be even more pressing in terms of the urgency of the issues, is that there's just a basic understanding among Americans that there are things outside the pale. And so it is interesting, and I'm not going to go into any detail here, but the very things that were kind of shown off in terms of, and all the rest in terms of, let's just say the sexual lifestyles that are embraced by the LGBTQ movement. You could put the mayor, Mayor Monda me was marching front of the line. Governor Kathy Hochul, again, marching at the front of the line. You have to wonder if they really want to be photographed with some of the people wearing almost nothing, men in particular wearing almost nothing. Very sexually suggestive stuff. Now, I think you would have to say even some of those just absolutely pro LGBTQ politicians understand it is going to come with some kind of cost. But it also shows you how ideologically committed they are when it comes to Governor Hochul and it comes to Mayor Mamdani, they are all in. And I think the mayor is making that point clearly in just about every way he can. All right, but there's another aspect to this, and that is that as Americans look at this, they're less supportive. Now, at this point, the numbers are not catastrophic for the LGBTQ community, but you know what? They thought it was all forward progress. They believed in this inevitable unfolding of success in terms of the ever expanding. Let's just. Just remind ourselves it's lgbtq. That plus sign means they intend for more to come. I am not saying that those things can't happen. I think we are in a very reckless cultural moment. But I am telling you that I think this is also a testimony to the power of creation order, and I believe also to the conscience that God has put within human beings, made in his image that moral capacity. And even though there are many people who seem to have succumbed to the larger, let's just say, LGBTQ revolutionary message, or at least live and let live, they might think, is their moral accommodation, the reality is that when you're talking about a teenage boy in the girl's bathroom, all of a sudden they see things a bit more clearly. And now we know the vast majority of Americans, at least at this point, are not willing to go along with the T in lgbt. Not all the way, at least, and especially not when it comes to children and teenagers. So, all right, on the other side of this, there will be a lot more to discuss, but that appears to be the state of that issue right now. Pride Month, full speed ahead. Except they are acknowledging the society may be moving slightly in the opposite direction. Alright, we come to the end of the 2025, 2026 season of the briefing. I just can't tell you how honored I am to be able to speak to you about these things five days a week until we come to the month of July. My board of trustees years ago informed me that I have to take a month without the burden of the briefing. And I'll just tell you it's hard, but at the same time, I know it is important, and I'm looking forward to some family time. And I'm looking forward also to coming back at the 1st of August with the briefing in the 2026, 2027 season. I also want to tell you one other thing, and this has never happened to me in the crunch at this time of the year before, but I believe the Supreme Court decisions coming down likely today would justify a special edition of the briefing. So let me just tell you I think I'm saying goodbye for the season and I might be back with a special edition tomorrow. Sometimes that's just the way things roll. I have to tell you what an honor it is to work with people who also give so much to the briefing and they're incredible professionals. They're also just a pleasure to work with. Graham Faulkner is producer and is also Director of Communications. Luke Pierce is the podcast coordinator. There are so many other people who help me just on a daily basis, but these two are so integral as the team for the briefing. I so appreciate them and just want to say thank you at the end of this season. And I also just want to thank you as listeners and say it will be my great joy, Lord willing, to be back with you for the new season starting on Monday, August 3, 2026. But as events may unfold, I may be back with a special edition as early as I can't believe I'm saying this tomorrow. I also want to make very clear that during the month of July we're going to be releasing a great deal of new programming which I think you can find interesting and I thankful we'll be releasing that during the month of July. For all of those resources you just go to my YouTube page, which is AlbertMohlerOfficial. Thanks for listening to the Briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.com youm can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to spts.edu. for information on voice college, just go to voicecollege.com in any event, Lord willing, I'll meet you for the next edition of the briefing.