Author: jh staff

A Just Outcome

Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old resident of Washington County, Utah, stands accused of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which took place on September 10, 2025, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University.

Kirk, a 31-year-old nationally recognized free speech advocate and high school/college civic preacher, was brutally gunned down in a crowded campus courtyard. It was a brazen targeted attack that shook the nation to its core.

Robinson, who was arrested after a 33-hour manhunt, faces charges of aggravated murder as well as other related felonies, with prosecutors pursuing the death penalty.

The alleged assailant’s crime, due to its premeditation, public endangerment, and assault on civil discourse itself, is one in which justice arguably demands the ultimate punishment available under the law.

Utah’s capital punishment statute reserves the death penalty for only the worst criminals, i.e., those who commit aggravated murder with a callous disregard for human life.

Robinson’s actions are clearly callous and demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the lives of Kirk, his family, and the attendees of the event.

The evidence shows overwhelmingly that this was not an impulsive act, but rather a calculated killing. It was planned and executed with alarming precision. Surveillance footage shows the defendant concealing a rifle and approaching the event with intent. He fired a fatal shot at Kirk prior to fleeing.

The county attorney has highlighted the premeditated nature of the attack, noting that Robinson, who was not a student at Utah Valley University, deliberately traveled to the event. Also noted were his actions afterward, including alleged attempts to both obstruct justice and tamper with witnesses.

In order to qualify for the death penalty, Utah law requires an aggravating factor of creating a “great risk of death to others.” Robinson’s alleged crime endangered scores of students, faculty, and attendees who were present at the college campus courtyard.

Adding to the death penalty case is the tragic fact that Kirk’s own children, as well as other children, were present to witness the horror, something that Robinson purportedly knew and yet went forward with his hideous actions.

A university campus is a place that has traditionally been looked upon as a bastion of free speech. Two of the major components of Kirk’s public service mission were to encourage civil discourse and to promote free speech in the corridors of academia.

It is the height of bitter irony that in addition to ending Kirk’s life, there was apparently a desire to extinguish Kirk’s own right to speak, forever.

To allow such an act to go without the application of the appropriate measure of justice serves to embolden others who might take it upon themselves to target individuals, terminate their lives, and irrevocably silence their voices.

Utah’s death penalty process is neither hasty nor arbitrary. It requires a unanimous jury finding of aggravated murder and aggravating circumstances, followed by a penalty phase that will weigh mitigating factors, such as remorse or mental health issues, against the crime’s severity.

Prosecutors must prove these factors beyond a reasonable doubt during the determination of the guilt phase of the trial. Based on what is currently known, given the eyewitness accounts, video evidence, and family cooperation, a conviction on aggravated murder seems probable.

Because of Kirk’s status as a high-profile national figure, jurors may be more likely to accept the suitability of the death penalty option. The strong evidence of aggravating circumstances, such as the public risk and premeditation, favors the use of the full extent of punishment.

Robinson’s lack of remorse was illustrated in his alleged obstruction, among other things, allegedly attempting to convince various individuals to stay silent. His reported lack of cooperation with the prosecution exhibits a clear lack of contrition.

It is a general principle that the wheels of justice grind slowly, in Utah and elsewhere. Robinson’s case may take years before a trial would actually begin, primarily due to pre-trial motions and competency evaluations. The state’s process is stringent, with automatic appeals to the Utah Supreme Court as well as potential federal habeas review that may delay a potential execution for years.

Notwithstanding delays and obstacles, the pursuit of justice is, and always will be, worth the wait time.

Those who oppose the death penalty often cite life without parole as a sufficient enough deterrence.

However, as our society is witnessing in similarly brutal cases, allowing defendants to live out their days in prison, with the lingering possibility of future clemency, sends a message that even the most egregious acts of violence may have future flexibility in alleviating consequences.

The death penalty, in contrast, affirms that some crimes are so grievous, the perpetrators themselves have essentially forfeited the right to remain in society.

For Kirk, his family, and the nation, there is one outcome at this time that appears to surpass all others.

May the laws of our land “Take up the cause of the fatherless” and “plead the case of the widow.” (Isaiah 1:17)

Lack of Authenticity Spells Doom for the Democrat Party

Democrats have been making the rounds on podcasts, cussing up a storm, singing sixties songs, and putting on their best tough guy and gal faces.

It’s all a desperate attempt to win back the voters they lost along the way to the Land of Woke.

Negative public feedback as well as pathetic polling results indicate their antics aren’t working. But they keep on trying.

Apparently, no one has told them yet that it is impossible to resonate with people if you haven’t got a message that’s worth hearing.

Envious of President Donald Trump’s positive poll numbers as well as his widespread appeal, Democrats have adopted a cheap imitation strategy in hopes of once again duping folks.

Recent stunts by Dems include former veep Kamala Harris’s unofficial beer summit with late-night host Stephen Colbert, Left Coast congressman Eric Swalwell’s anti-GOP jaw-flapping gym session, and Garden State Cory Booker’s “Jersey Shores”-style rant on the Senate floor.

Their machinations have consistently come across as unimaginative, juvenile, and inauthentic.

Why would prominent Democrat figures engage in such undignified behavior? The numbers provide the likely explanation.

According to The New York Times, when it comes to voter registration, Democrats are “bleeding support beyond the ballot box.” All of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party measured severe drops in Democratic Party registrations in between the elections of 2020 and 2024.

A recent survey from CNBC indicates that the Dem’s net favorability has hit a near three-decade low.

The Democratic Party carries a -32 net favorability rating among registered voters, which is the lowest rating for either the Democratic or Republican Party going as far back as1996.

The Dems have a 24 % positive rating and a 56 % negative rating.

A recent YouGov poll shows that 58% of Democratic voters view their leaders as “out of touch,” compared to only 42% of Republicans who view their leaders in the same way.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that 54% of Americans trust Republicans more on economic issues, compared to 39% for Democrats.

The numbers suggest that people are seeing through the political theatrics. The Democrats lost 2.1 million registered voters across 30 states and Washington, D.C., while Republicans gained 2.4 million registered voters.

These numbers reflect the self-evident principle that authenticity is something that cannot be concocted.

Democrats, many of whom have presidential ambitions, are attempting to duplicate President Trump’s communication and leadership style. Interestingly, pretending to be him just isn’t cutting it.

That’s because President Trump isn’t method acting. He’s himself 24/7. His comments resonate because they are routinely unscripted, unvarnished, and unapologetic. The exact opposite of the Dem Trump wannabes.

While the Democrats have been hard at work creating TikTok videos, President Trump has been hard at work solving problems. He makes sure that he updates the public each day, reporting on issues that have been resolved and those still in need of tackling. And he spells all of it out in primary colors so we don’t have to carry a pocket dictionary or woke wordbook to figure out what he’s trying to tell us.

Democrats are seemingly stuck in an unending sequel to High School Musical. They may be having fun but they don’t realize they aren’t being laughed with, they’re being laughed at, in addition to subsequently being ignored.

The backlash on social media confirms that their calculated spectacles are backfiring, perceived by the public as second-rate and utterly fake.

Reportedly, Democratic strategists have privately warned that the approach risks turning candidates into caricatures. Recent polling data indicate that voters want political candidates to be real. A Rasmussen survey from early 2025 shows 63% of the all-important independents say they’re less likely to vote for candidates who “try to act like someone they’re not.”

The younger voter demographic that Democrats covet appear to be increasingly apathetic. Only 49% of Gen Z voters plan to turn out in 2026, according to a recent Tufts University study. This number is down from the 57% seen in 2020.

The reason for the drop is simple. Many of the young people cited distrust of politicians, who in their words are “pretending to be like us,” as the reason for their pulling away.

Authenticity is a difficult concept to describe, but humans seem to have an inner sense of whether or not a fellow human being is being genuine.

In terms of the way in which Dems have been behaving, folks additionally sense what authenticity is not about.

It’s not about mugging for the cameras, showing off one’s talents or lack thereof, chasing internet fame, or channeling another person’s persona.

With regard to public service, authenticity is about being honest about who you are, straightforward about what you stand for, and resolute in putting the needs of your constituents ahead of your own. Things that the current iteration of the Democrat Party either can’t or won’t do.

If the Democrat Party doesn’t learn the authenticity lesson in a hurry, the curtain just may come down before the play is over.

The Big California Redistricting Scheme

California’s state legislature recently came up with a proposed redistricting plan, which is spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Democrats are taking a democracy-destroying approach in order to supposedly save democracy. Wobbly-headed, but after all, this is the Left Coast.

The whole thing is a dangerous step backwards for the state, and even more importantly, for the nation at large.

Here’s the skinny. In 2008 and 2010, California voters decisively approved Propositions 11 and 20, creating the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). The goal was to draw fair and impartial district lines for future state and congressional elections.

The bipartisan citizen-led body was designed to remove the taint of political self-interest from the redistricting process. The CRC’s maps, drawn after extensive public input and certified in 2021, were crafted to reflect California’s diverse population and to ensure competitive representative districts.

Polls indicate that Californians overwhelmingly support the independent commission, with 64% favoring its continued authority over line-drawing as compared to only 36% that back legislative control.

The results of the poll make sense because the voters themselves created the CRC to keep the hands of politicians off congressional maps.

With the backing of former President Barack Obama and other Democrat figures, California Democrats moved full steam ahead, opting to dismantle the system and sideline the CRC in order to allow Dem lawmakers to draw new congressional maps that favor their own party.

It is a blatant underhanded way to bypass the current system. Here’s how the whole thing went down.

Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment that would suspend the CRC’s authority, ostensibly temporarily.

Then they proceeded to draft maps behind closed doors, without any public hearings and minus the all-important input from the community.

With political dissecting tools in hand, they split counties a hefty 16 times, and cities over 100 times.

The map will only take effect if voters approve it in a special election that is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

The election will be a referendum on whether Californians are going to value their own democratic reforms and protect the independent CRC, or whether they will fall prey to the same partisan gamesmanship they once rejected.

Ironically, implementation of the Dem’s plan will end up shredding the very democratic reforms that Californians fought so hard for. Adding insult to injury, the purported tab for the financially-strapped state may run as high as $250 million.

The tortured redistricting approach is a complete betrayal of voter intent. In addition, it is a logistical and ethical nightmare.

Here’s why. The design requires that a constitutional amendment be passed, which would have to be rushed through via a questionable legislative tactic that would bypass the state’s 30-day public review rule.

Republican lawmakers have already filed a lawsuit, which contends that the legislative process violates California’s constitutional requirement that bills be in circulation for at least 30 days prior to a vote by the legislature.

The plaintiffs also contend in the lawsuit that the new map was drawn in secret without meaningful public input, which undermines transparency and democratic participation.

There are broader legal concerns as well, due to a 1983 California Supreme Court ruling that prohibits mid-decade redistricting. It is this prohibition that Democrats seek to override via a new amendment to the state constitution.

The Dem’s game plan is likely to face additional legal challenges. The National Republican Congressional Committee has vowed to fight it “in the courts and at the ballot box.” Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, is launching a “legal war” against it as well.

Dems have enlisted some support from former President Obama, who has chimed in, endorsing the plan and characterizing it as a “responsible approach” and a “smart, measured approach.”

Proponents argue that it is a necessary counter to Republican redistricting in Texas. By overriding the CRC, the new maps will eliminate five Republican seats, tilting California’s already left-wing legislature even further to the left, creating a hyper-partisan map that stifles competition and marginalizes voters.

So it looks as though the scheme may actually kick off a redistricting war nationwide, inviting both parties to manipulate congressional maps to the max. This is a game that Republicans will likely win, since most blue states have already been highly distorted by previous gerrymandering.

In truth, the California Democrat plan doesn’t really deserve to succeed. Internal polling shows a thin 52% level of voter support, which is likely to sink even lower due to a well-funded information campaign backed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican donors, and a coalition of groups that includes Common Cause.

But the more important reason it doesn’t deserve to succeed is because it’s one more in a series of schemes, courtesy of a party that just can’t bring itself to even want to win elections on merit.

A party that is top-heavy with members who are way too busy admiring themselves in the mirror to notice their constituents have left the room.

Lawmakers’ Desertion Is Soros Funded

Over 50 Democrat legislators recently fled their home state of Texas and took up temporary residence in the ultra-blue states of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts.

While the who, what, and why of their ill-advised departure continue to be hammered out, the how may be of particular importance to Texans and the country at large.

It appears as though the absconders may have received an assist in their runaway efforts from none other than George Soros, Beto O’Rourke, and possible others.

More than a mere political stunt, the performance act is a frontal assault on the legislative process and blatant mockery of our governmental system.

These state lawmakers swore an oath to serve the people. Needless to say, showing up for the job is a prerequisite. Abandoning their posts and hiding out in various other states is a breach of their core obligations.

They have one major goal in mind: To thwart a constitutionally mandated redrawing of a congressional map, which is necessitated by Texas’s population growth and the societal values of the region.

This quorum-impeding antic is racking up quite a bill. Private jets, luxury hotels, and logistical support for the runaway legislators has been costly. However, the tab is evidently being picked up by the Soros-backed Texas Majority PAC and O’Rourke’s Powered by People PAC.

The involvement of Soros and O’Rourke is particularly concerning. Soros, through his various foundations, has poured millions into radical causes over the past decades, causes that have eroded America’s shared societal values.

O’Rourke is a failed political candidate, who appears to be chasing fame and seeking relevance. His group reportedly has a $3.5 million war chest, much of which has apparently been funneled into covering the legislative duckers’ airfare, lodging, and possibly the $500 per day fines, which every lawmaker faces for dodging the legislative session.

Despite how the mainstream media characterize it, this is not grassroots activism. Rather, it is a cynical ploy on the part of Democrats to have their betrayal of voters paid for and the desired unearned power placed in their hands.

Texas has seen its population explode over the past decade, with millions of residents being added and additional congressional seats being warranted.

Texas is a red state powered largely by conservative principles, such as smaller government, religious liberty, and individual autonomy. Voters in the Lone Star State have repeatedly rejected the left’s agenda of open borders, higher taxes, and radical social policies. The proposed congressional maps reflect these realities.

The truth is the Democrat’s hypocrisy is in plain view. Gerrymandering, or the redrawing of lines on congressional maps, which set unnatural boundaries and carve out slivers of one-party voters, has been the hallmark of Democrats for years now.

Look no further than the states of Illinois and New York. Maps were redrawn prior to elections to secure power for Democrats, with the goal of maintaining it indefinitely.

What Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican majority in Texas are doing is not a moral equivalent. Rather, the governor and the legislators are utilizing a tool that is at their disposal to bring the congressional map up to current representative standards.

Gov. Abbott has correctly ordered the Texas Rangers to investigate potential bribery charges. If O’Rourke’s PAC is covering fines or personal expenses for the renegade Democrat lawmakers, it may be in violation of Texas’s election laws. House rules explicitly bar the use of campaign funds for personal expenses.

Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against O’Rourke’s group alleges that funds are being misused for private jets, hotels, and dining expenses. In the lawsuit, he has accused the political group of misleading donors by claiming contributions would be used for political purposes, when instead the money is being used for what the AG has characterized as “lavish personal expenditures” for AWOL lawmakers.

Atty. Gen. Paxton also claims that O’Rourke promised to cover fines for Democrats if they broke quorum. Additionally, he has petitioned to have 13 of the lawmakers removed from office for their roles in stalling the redistricting plan, and he is seeking a court declaration to allow Gov. Abbott to call special elections in order to fill the seats of missing Democrats.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX, has the FBI assisting in the apprehension of the illicitly absent lawmakers.

Ironically, back in 2021 a group of Democrats tried to pull off a similar stunt, fleeing the scene in order to block election integrity measures. They returned empty-handed, their grandstanding achieving nothing.

In the current version of the same ploy, Democrats are hoping to run out the clock on a legislative process that they cannot legitimately outmaneuver.

Staying out of state until December 2025 would cost Democrats more than $3.2 million in fines.

December 2025 also happens to be the filing deadline for candidates to register for the 2026 midterms. Congressional maps would have to be set by that point, and no further redistricting could take place.

These absentee lawmakers are shirking their responsibilities, wasting taxpayer dollars, and undermining the foundations of representative government.

Democrat legislators have chosen to game the system.

May honorable leaders right the wrongs.

Communist Seduction and Zohran Mamdani

If America is to survive as a nation, it is important that our people have a fuller understanding of the inherent dangers of communism.

Unfortunately, for far too long there hasn’t been a whole lot of discussion about the evidence-based heinousness of communism.

Socialism, or what those in the know call “communism lite,” made its way into the cultural milieu several decades ago. Politicians who were practiced at the art of deception went on to popularize it.

Once socialism got its initial foothold, the slide into communism was sadly a relatively easy one. Our country now finds itself in the situation of having a candidate for the upcoming New York City mayoral race who has a documented track record of proudly advocating full-blown communist policies.

Democratic candidate for NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani has made it very clear that he wants to eliminate the free market and replace it with communism. His Big Apple starting point would be housing, with a plan to get rid of privately-owned housing and instead have government-controlled property.

Under the mantle of supposed social justice, he seeks to confiscate the wealth of New York City homeowners. His policies would inevitably drive real estate development and investment out of the city.

Mamdani has spouted words that echo the writers of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

“If there was any system that could guarantee each person housing, whether you call it the abolition of private property or you call it, you know, just a statewide housing guarantee, it is preferable to what is going on right now,” Mamdani said.

He goes even further, stating that his objective is “to take control of the means of production,” a phrase that has been used by communists before him throughout the ages.

It’s high time for some straight truth about the horrors of communism.

The communist intelligensia as well as those who embrace communist ideology know that control of ideas and information ultimately determines the direction toward which a society moves.

In an effort to transform society’s beliefs, attitudes, mores, and behaviors, the institutional pillars of society are infiltrated, with special attention to those of academia, journalism, law, news media, and the entertainment industry.

Numerous polls make the unfortunate point that too many folks today don’t really understand the threat to life and liberty that communism poses. This may particularly apply to young people who haven’t yet been exposed to the truth about this totalitarian form of government.

In 2020, a poll was released of those 16 years of age and up, which showed that 35% of millennials and 31% of the Gen Z population “support the gradual elimination of the capitalist system in favor of a more socialist system.”

The same poll indicated that 20% of millennials and 1/3 of the Gen-Z population view communism favorably.

“Communism—the pernicious idea that man could create his own heaven on earth—is, quite simply, the most deadly idea ever conceived in the history of the world,” writes Steven W. Mosher, in his book “The Devil and Communist China.”

Communism is an insidious political ideology precisely because it is one that is based on lies.

For individuals who are motivated to acquire power for less than honorable purposes, this ideology provides a rationale and grants a tacit self-permission to oppress others. Left unchecked, history has proven that the ideology’s implementation inevitably leads to widespread suffering, and even the loss of innocent life for victims of the oppression.

Promoters of communist governance typically employ a kind of linguistic seduction, with ample use of words and phrases that are intended to captivate our human emotions, satisfy our drive to have basic needs supplied, and lure us in with a most enticing message: We will belong to a group and be accepted by others.

Of course, it is a series of lies that are wrapped up in a pretty box with a bow on top. Usually the package is presented to the public by a highly appealing yet duplicitous individual.

It’s all so enticing at first, but countries under communism have a distinct pattern of deteriorating rapidly.

Under communist rule, there are no free and fair elections. No rule of law either. State-sponsored security forces are used to suppress dissent. Human rights violations are routine. Central planning fails to allocate resources efficiently, resulting in shortages and economic instability. Private property is abolished. Individual incentives to work are non-existent, and ultimately, misery prevails.

“Communism is a cancer, and it always produces the same results: oppression, suffering and death. We must teach the next generation of Americans the threat communism poses to liberty and justice for innocent people around the world,” said GOP Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.

As the largest and most iconic city in America, it is a very real possibility that an NYC mayoral race gone awry will lead to a “so goes New York City, so goes the country” outcome.

For the good of our nation and all of her people, I pray that NYC voters don’t fall for the communist seduction.

Men Competing in Women’s Sports Ultimately Headed to the Supreme Court

In a recent podcast with Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that it is “deeply unfair” for boys to compete against girls in athletic contests.

The governor’s “unfair” admission appears to have been a momentary opinion, since he soon changed direction regarding female athletes in his state.

President Donald Trump had made the subject of prohibiting biological male athletes from competing in women’s sports a key issue in the 2024 election campaign. President Trump recently suggested that he may cut federal funding to California if the state continued to allow biological male athletes to compete against females.

Gov. Newsom was informed that California’s policies are in violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally-funded educational program.

In February 2025, the Department of Education began an investigation into the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which oversees sports at more than 1500 high schools. These are schools at which the policy of allowing male transgender students to compete against females has continued.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began an investigation into whether California was violating the civil rights of female students in connection with the implementation of the same policies.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined a list of demands for California, which must be met if the state wishes to continue to receive federal funding. Sec. McMahon noted that California must fulfill a list of actions or risk the loss of education funding.

The Department of Education’s investigation indicated that the California Department of Education (CDE) and the CIF are in violation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that forbids sex-based discrimination in education. This is because the state’s policies allow males who identify as females to participate in women’s sports.

Should the State of California decide not to comply with Title IX and fail to prohibit participation by biological males, it will lose federal funding.

The administration has proposed a resolution agreement that would require California to change its policies. The Golden State has 10 days to accept the proposed resolution agreement. If it does not, the Department of Education will refer the matter to the DOJ for further proceedings.

Under the resolution agreement, California must:

– Alter its guidance that allows participation in sports based on gender identity.

– Issue written apologies to each female athlete who took second place to a biological male athlete.

– Restore misappropriated sports records, titles, and awards to the female athletes who would otherwise have attained them.

– Adopt binary biology-based definitions for the terms “male” and “female.”

– Conduct an annual certification ensuring compliance with Title IX.

In analyzing this issue from a legal perspective, it is difficult to see how the U.S. Supreme Court could not be the final arbiter in this matter.

Several states have already passed laws restricting participation, based on sex assigned at birth. Other states are facing legal challenges that assert discrimination.

As legal battles have ensued, courts have reached differing conclusions when reviewing challenges surrounding the placement of restrictions on transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. Legal challenges have invoked both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some federal courts have rendered rulings that base discrimination on gender identity. Other courts have ruled that the restriction of teams based on biological sex does not violate legal protections.

Courts have also been divided in rulings that concern the application of the Equal Protection Clause with regard to laws and policies that involve gender identity in differing contexts.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14201, which seeks to ban biological males from female sports across all educational levels, brings an additional layer to the legal complexity.

In my legal opinion, the issue of biological male athletes competing in women’s sports necessitates a High Court decision, because of the need for a thorough analysis and ultimately a clear definitive ruling.

The direct involvement of the Supreme Court, regarding the manner in which Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws are applied to transgender athletes, is essential, due to the conflicting legal interpretations of multiple federal courts as well as the societal ramifications that will inevitably flow from the High Court’s decision.

Catholic Bishops Fight Washington State’s Anti-Christian Law

The State of Washington recently passed a law that requires religious clergy to report information to authorities, even when the information is obtained during the centuries-old rite of Confession.

Although there are other legal ramifications to the new law, of particular significance is the reporting of information involving the sexual abuse of a child that is obtained during the sacramental rite.

Under the new legislation, clergy are required under penalty of law to report to authorities information that is acquired within the sacred walls of a confessional.

The term clergy, as defined in the state law, is “any regularly licensed, accredited, or ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly positioned religious or spiritual leader.”

However, the state is solely targeting what is known as the priest-penitent privilege, leaving a lengthy list of categories of communications impervious to judicial interference, including the attorney-client privilege, the spousal privilege, and the sexual assault advocate privilege.

In my legal assessment, this new law is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and selective in that it exempts from compelled testimony an aunt or uncle, an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor, a union representative, and an extensive list of others receiving confidential communication.

Catholic priests, on the other hand, are left exposed to be subpoenaed.

The priest-penitent privilege became a legal principle in the law of evidence for the purpose of protecting confidential communications between Catholic priests and those individuals seeking forgiveness and spiritual guidance during the Sacrament of Confession.

In the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confession is a sacred religious practice through which individuals confess their sins to a priest, who represents Christ, in order to seek forgiveness, grace, and reconciliation with God.

Priests are obligated to maintain what is called the “seal of confession,” a strict mandate of confidentiality.

The obligation of the confessional seal is so significant that, if violated, the penalty for the priest is as severe as can be: an automatic excommunication.

The confidentiality of communications during Confession is essential for Catholic Christians to be able to freely practice their faith. Being able to speak freely to clergy, without concern that any intimate admissions would ever be disclosed, is key to this sacramental experience.

The Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides insight into the gravity of the obligations to which Catholic clergy are subject.

Canons 983 and 984 deal with the administration of the Sacrament of Confession and the confidentiality required by priests.

Canon 983 states that the sacramental seal is “inviolable,” meaning that a priest may not act against the interests of the penitent in any way whatsoever.

Canon 983 §1. states that “it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”

Canon 984 prohibits priests from any uses of the information acquired in Confession that would be a detriment to the penitent, even when a disclosure of the information is not deemed to be a risk.

The legal privileges set forth in Canon Law support the ability of clergy and penitents to freely practice their religion. It is likewise an integral part of religious freedom in general, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the state from interfering with sacred religious practices, as per the restraints on government set forth in the First Amendment.

With the new law, Washington legislators are seemingly attempting to use the public’s concern for an extremely serious crime to undermine revered Christian religious practices.

The Catholic Bishops of Washington have responded by filing a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the law.

In the lawsuit documents, the bishops present to the court the legal argument that the State of Washington has, by “putting clergy to the choice between temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation,” and, “interfering with the internal governance and discipline of the Catholic Church, and targeting religion for the abrogation of all privileges,” patently violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Washington.

The bishops also cite the discriminatory and arbitrary nature of the state interference by pointing out that the legislature has ignored secular privileges, while unfairly singling out religion.

“Information obtained through privileged communication by any supervisor in an organization other than clergy—including, for example, any non-clergy member of a religious non-profit or any member of a non-religious nonprofit—remains excluded from the reporting requirement.”

For priests, this is an impossible choice: Either violate Catholic Church teaching and incur automatic excommunication; or, after non-compliance with the law, be subjected to imprisonment, endure the confinement for the prescribed time, and suffer the separation from the flock they vowed to shepherd.

No doubt prayers are going up that the Washington State law will be struck down by a federal court.