Owing to yet another special session of the Minnesota State Legislature, the end of June marked the culmination of both the State of Minnesota 2021 Legislative Session and the 2020-21 U.S. Supreme Court Term. What follows is a concise report on those issues in which the LCMS has taken an interest.

2021 MN Legislative Session

Outcomes of the Minnesota Legislature were shaped by two realities, namely, the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the politically divided nature of our legislative bodies (a Democratic-controlled House  and a Republican-controlled Senate). As a result, very few non-COVID-related policy issues received much attention.

The exception to this was two proposals advocating for expanded parental choice in education. One bill (commonly known as an Education Savings Account, HF 1528 / SF 1525) would allow parents to direct State education dollars to the school of their choosing, whether religious or non-religious. A second bill (HF 1373 / SF1251) would allow tuition as a creditable expense in the State's already existing Tax Credit Program.

Both bills were widely discussed and strongly supported by the Senate. The willingness to take up this issue is closely related to the impact of COVID-19 on education and the fact that grassroots public opinion has shifted heavily in favor of greater parental choice among all political groupings, including Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. The only entities which stood in complete opposition were the Governor and Education Minnesota (the teachers' union). In the end, however, their opposition was sufficient to yet again frustrate the yearning of a large majority of Minnesotans who want to give parents the resources they need to direct the education of their children. Needless to say, this is an issue that will return to the forefront when the Legislature reconvenes.

2020-21 U.S. Supreme Court Term

With regard to the Supreme Court decisions handed down this session, three stand out in particular. They are Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta.

• In Fulton, the Court, in a 9-0 decision, found in favor of a Catholic adoption agency which sought to continue to function as an agent of the city while maintaining its religious conviction that children should not be placed in the homes of same-sex couples. In short, it was a clear indication from the Court that the city is not at liberty to trample the First Amendment religious liberties of churches or other church-related institutions.

• In Uzuegbunam, the Court found in favor of a Christian student whose First Amendment free speech rights had been violated by the university he attended and held them liable for damages.

• In Thomas More Law Center, the Court declared that the State of California's demand to be given donor lists was an unconstitutional infringement on a donor's expectation of privacy and had a chilling effect on free speech.

In all of the above cases, the Court is rightfully reasserting the strength of our Constitution’s protection of free speech and religious liberty, at least for the Church and its agencies. Less reassuring and more disturbing is the Court's wavering commitment to protecting the religious liberty rights of individual Christians, especially when those rights come in conflict with the legal claims of the LGBTQ community. This is seen primarily in the refusal of the Court to hear the appeal of Baronelle Stutzman, the Washington florist whose religious liberty rights have been flagrantly denied by the State of Washington. Though this case is now closed after eight years of litigation, this is an area of law that Christians must pay close attention to.

Finally, we should take great encouragement in two cases which the SCOTUS has agreed to hear in its next term beginning in October 2021. First is the Dobbs case out of Mississippi, which holds the potential to overturn or, at least, significantly restrain Roe v. Wade and the blanket abortion license it has unleashed. Second is the Carson case out of Maine, which offers the opportunity to remove yet one more legal barrier to robust school choice throughout our nation. Both of these cases we will watch closely in the year ahead

Conclusion

As we in the LCMS formally and informally engage our government and our culture on selected matters of public policy, we continue to be guided by our doctrine of Two Kingdoms. Which is to say, while we fully acknowledge that government is a God-ordained part of our life together to which we owe respect and cooperation, we, as individuals and collectively as a Church Body, also bear a calling to love, serve, and protect our neighbor by actively interacting with the government and participating in the political process. Our prayer is that we be granted wisdom so that our participation will be God-pleasing and truly serve the common good.

Highly recommended sources of information:

1. Colson Center for Christian Worldview, especially BreakPoint daily articles by John Stonestreet

2. Family Research Council

3. Minnesota Family Council

4. The Heritage Foundation, especially The Morning Bell

 As usual, I'm happy to field any questions you or your members might have.

In Christ,

Rev. Fred Hinz

fred.hinz@mnsdistrict.org | 507-317-9634
LCMS Public Policy Advocate
Minnesota South and North Districts
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod