Vetting keys on religious-liberty rulings

Raymond Kethledge, one of the finalists President Donald Trump is considering for the Supreme Court, has never explicitly stated his views on abortion or same-sex marriage.

But in April, Kethledge, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, ruled in favor of Cathedral Buffet, a church-run Ohio restaurant being sued by the government because congregants were allegedly being “spiritually coerced” by their pastor to work without pay.

While liberals are working to define the president’s second nomination to the high court as a battle over the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that cemented abortion rights, judges’ sympathies in cases such as Cathedral Buffet are serving as a proving ground for conservatives.

One person involved in the Supreme Court nomination process said that, as aides have sifted candidates’ judicial records, they have paid careful attention to whether candidates “are sensitive to … the free exercise of religion, and the importance of conscience rights.”

In court rulings and other writings, the final candidates for the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy have consistently taken positions broadening faith-based objections to federal and state policies, government funding of churchrun organizations, and prayer in public settings.

Such deference to religious freedom has become a precondition for a spot on the White House’s list of Supreme Court contenders, people close to the process say, as conservatives have become focused in the past few years on counteracting progressive changes of President Barack Obama’s era, including expanding gay rights and access to birth-control coverage.

Advocates on both sides of the political spectrum predict that this matter of judicial views on religion will figure in a fierce confirmation fight over whomever the president chooses.