This is a transcript of Episode 6. Amicus, Slates podcast about the Supreme Court. These transcripts are lightly edited and may contain errors. Billing Program Amicus Attorney Support' title='Billing Program Amicus Attorney Support' />For the definitive record, consult the podcast. Dahlia Lithwick Hi, and welcome to Amicus, Slates podcast about the U. S. Supreme Court. Im Dahlia Lithwick, and I cover the courts and the law for Slate, and this past Monday, after a 1. Billing Program Amicus Attorney Support' title='Billing Program Amicus Attorney Support' />Judge Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as the junior justice of the highest court in the land. Neil M. Gorsuch I, Neil M. Gorsuch, do solemnly swear. Speaker That I will administer justice without respect to persons. Gorsuch That I will administer justice without respect to persons. Speaker And do equal right to the poor and to the rich. Choosing the Amicus that is right for you desktop, cloud or both Amicus Attorney is desktop software on your local PC or private cloud. Its perfect for you if. This needs to change but will be about the DPSS page. Michelle V. Alonzo is an attorney in the Cowles Thompson Immigration Practice Group. She focuses on employmentbased immigration matters, where her experience includes. Family code. title 5. Gorsuch And do equal right to the poor and the rich. Speaker And that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and. Lithwick One of the lessons of the Gorsuch confirmation and the Merrick Garland blockade is that movement conservatism is in its ascendancy. One of the key groups channeling the energy of that movement is the Federalist Society and, later on in the show, were going to speak with Jeffrey Toobin about the man at the helm of that group, but first we turn to the last arguments of this term, which will take place in April, this month, with the new Justice Gorsuch on the bench. Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer is sometimes described as a fight over something that is, itself, kind of silly. The repurposed rubber stuff that covers hard playground surfaces so the small children dont bump their heads when theyre coming down the slides. But the playground surface stuff in this case actually carries pretty high stakes. So high, in fact, that the Supreme Court held off on hearing this argument until a ninth justice was seated this month and so, next week, one year, three months, and four days after the justices originally agreed to review it, the court will hear this important church state case that comes out of Missouri. The church in this instance, which operates a day care, claims that a state program that helps nonprofits to pay for these rubber surfaces is in violation of the First and 1. Amendments. Why Because the program only assists secular institutions, but not religious ones. Now, youre not going to be surprised to hear the number of other religious organizations that have filed amicus briefs in support of Trinity Lutheran in this case, but among the briefs on the other side is a very interesting one also submitted by a pair of religious groups. In it, the United Church of Christ and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom argue, in essence, that religious institutions will actually be freer in the long run if theyre barred from accepting government money. Holly Hollman is general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee. A group that has championed state and federal laws even in some instances more protective of the free exercise of religion than is the First Amendment. We invited Holly onto the show to explain why her group is advocating having an even higher wall between church and state. So, first of all, Holly, welcome to Amicus. Holly Hollman Thanks, Dahlia. Its great to be with you. Dahlia Lithwick So lets start at the very beginning, Holly, because an awful lot of our listeners have been doing nothing but watching Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings, and so, they may have missed some of the nuts and bolts of this one. Trinity Lutheran Church, this fight dates back to 2. When the church applies for a state program that reimburses nonprofits for when they take this playground material made from recycled tires. Right Can you help us understand both what the program is and why Trinity Lutheran is actually ineligible to participate in this government program Hollman Sure. It really is an unusual context for a major church state battle that we have here at the Supreme Court. Missouri has a really small discretionary program. Who would have known that scrap tires, people leaving tires around, creates a major nuisance, but it does. It creates all these kinds of environmental problems and so they came up with a program to encourage the use of scrap. Scrap tire material. Try to find some good uses for it so that you dont have these tires around. One use is to make pallets, or kind of platforms, out of the rubber that you could use for playground safety. So they came out with a program to sort of incentivize people to improve playgrounds with scrap tires from Missouri to get rid of their problem there. They designed a program consistent with the Missouri Constitution that says theres no state aid for churches. But Trinity Lutheran Church said, you know, they wanted to apply for this and they went ahead and applied but then were rejected and claimed that the rejection was discrimination against them because they are religious. When in fact, they were not entitled to be part of this program because of the state policy based upon its constitution. Lithwick Now, Holly, youve looked at this but lets really unspool it. There are two issues in this case. One is protection under the Missouri Constitution. One is the religious clauses in the Federal Constitution. Right In the United States Constitution. I think one of the things thats hard to understand in this case is that the church is saying, Hey, we have rights under the U. S. Constitution. Specifically, our free exercise rights that prohibit the government from enacting policies that harm us from exercising our religion. We also have rights under the 1. Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This entire Missouri protection in its constitution, actually hobbles those rights. So, we have a kind of a constitution off going. Right Hollman We did. So they have asserted that they had this constitutional right, as you said, free exercise and equal protection. A right for the money. Theyre, like, they have the right to participate in a state funding program is what they claim. As your listeners know, our constitutional tradition protects religious freedom in these two ways. We protect free exercise of religion. Keeping the government from interfering in religious practice but we also have this hard bar against government establishment of religion so that we dont want the government aiding religion, advancing religion. Thats the job of individual adherents and faith communities, not the job of the government. This case the state defended based upon its state constitution because the Missouri Constitution, like 3. You know how the Federal Constitution just says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the States have protections that can be even stronger and say, No aid to churches, and thats what Missouri has. Missouri actually has three provisions that do that. So this dispute falls in this kind of permissive area of state policymaking where maybe some would argue that allowing this money to go to churches might pass muster under the Federal Constitution. Thats not at issue here in this case. So thats kind of putting that aside because Missouri has stronger provisions as well. It doesnt pass muster under the state constitution and the Supreme Court has recognized that states do have room to protect the freedom of religion through its stronger constitutional provision. Lithwick And talk for a minute, Holly, because its not immediately apparent why the states are more worried about disestablishment than the Federal Constitution. In other words, whats the historic basis for the states enacting these provisions that go much further than the federal First AmendmentHollman Well, I think its because it comes out of this early American history where you had. America being established on religious freedom and people escaping religious persecution in Europe. Drivers Toolkit 8.5 Crack more. Well, of course what happened is they came here and set up their own establishment and so you had different kinds of religious establishments in different states. Prevagen complaint suggests mindfulness about memory claims. Ads for Prevagen claimed that the purported memory improvement supplement is The Name to Remember, but according to a lawsuit filed by the FTC and the New York Attorney General, its a product consumers might be better off forgetting. Ever walk into a room and forget why, spend extra time looking for car keys or purse, or have trouble remembering names or facesThe defendants pitched Prevagen, a supplement containing a protein found in jellyfish, as an answer. A months supply set consumers back between 2. Amazon, CVS, Duane Reade, Rite Aid, Meijer, the Vitamin Shoppe, and Walgreens. The defendants also ran an infomercial called The Better Memory Show and had company representatives board the Prevagen Express bus to visit health food centers and health expos across the country. Sales for Prevagen topped 1. Yes, you read that right. According to the complaint, the defendants represented in national TV ads and elsewhere that Prevagen improves memory within 9. Whats more, they claimed to have clinical proof to support their advertising promises. How was apoaequorin that jellyfish protein supposed to help people struggling with cognitive decline The ads claimed that it enters the brain to supplement proteins lost during the aging process. But according to the FTC and New York AG, the defendants dont have studies showing that apoaequorin taken orally ever reaches the brain To the contrary, Defendants safety studies show that apoaequorin is rapidly digested in the stomach and broken down into amino acids and small peptides like any other dietary protein. The FTC and AG also allege that the defendants made false statements about their purported clinical evidence. Youll want to read the complaint for details, but heres just one example. The company relied primarily on a double blind, placebo controlled human study assessing subjects on nine cognitive tasks designed to assess skills like memory and learning. But according to the FTC and New York AG, the group that took Prevagen failed to show a statistically significant improvement in any of the nine tasks when compared with people who were given a placebo. Filed in federal court in New York, the lawsuit names Prevagen, Inc., Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC, CEO Michael Beaman, and President Mark Underwood. Mr. Underwood was a lead researcher in the company conducted clinical study, appeared in Prevagen ads, and wrote a booklet, The Brain Health Guide, that purports to explain the science behind the claims. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act and two New York state consumer protection laws.