Alliance Defending Freedom isn’t representing you, but Christian Nationalism broadly | Opinion

In a recent Idaho Statesman guest opinion, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador complained that those who criticized him for placing Idaho’s legal affairs into the hands of the Alliance Defending Freedom were “whiners.” The opinion boasted that ADF’s legal services were free. Like most things hyped as free, however, the relationship comes with a heavy cost.

In its own words, the ADF “seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.” This mysterious phrase is a reference to the establishment of Christianity as the official state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Today we would refer to this yearning for official state religion as Christian nationalism or the mingling of church and state. When ADF argues cases, it argues for the placement of Christian features into the public square.

Recall not too many years ago in the prior presidential administration, the same folks now seeking the confluence of religious doctrine and state policy raised a strong cry against the threat of Islamic Sharia law becoming the law of this land. Before breaching the membrane between church and state, it is best to remember that by 2070, Christianity may not be the majority religion in the United States. As the shoe moves to the other foot, we should protect our future religious freedoms rather than surrender our religious freedom to extremists.

This overcast of religion onto Idaho’s court cases has seen effective results that do not appear to be in the best interests of the majority of Idahoans. In two controversial cases, both the Idaho federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed enforcement of Idaho statutes because they found them to be most likely unconstitutional.

In Idaho v. United States, the courts ruled that the federal law allowed abortion for pregnant women with emergency conditions if their health was in jeopardy. The courts found the federal law superseded Idaho’s statute preventing abortion except when a pregnant woman faced death. ADF filed a motion in the United States Supreme Court lifting this stay.

According to a survey conducted by Boise State University’s Idaho Policy Institute and School of Public Service, 58% of Idahoans favor expanding exceptions to Idaho’s current abortion law. Since the law went into effect, more than 50 Idaho obstetricians have stopped practicing in the state, reducing the numbers from 227 to about 176. The clear wants and needs of Labrador’s client, the people of the state of Idaho, are running contrary to what the ADF is selling the courts.

The second case concerns Idaho’s statute prohibiting procedures for what is called “gender dysphoria,” or a conflict between a person’s apparent gender and the gender they experience. Again, the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed enforcement of the statute because it is likely unconstitutional, but ADF has filed a motion with the Supreme Court to lift that stay during litigation.

The ADF has taken positions in these cases regardless of constitutional considerations or the needs and wants of the folks living in this state. This allows the ADF to advance its agenda to force the state to adopt the ADF’s religious views. Standing, meaning the right to take a position in litigation, belongs to the litigants, not the lawyers. In the circumstance of these cases, however, Labrador has surrendered standing to ADF zealots to advance ADF’s vision of a state religion regardless of the best interests of the client, the people of Idaho.

The positions taken by the ADF extremists in Idaho’s litigation will concern every Idahoan who cares about constitutional freedoms. The First Amendment contains what is called the “Establishment Clause” prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. The language prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Further, the Supreme Court tells us that the Establishment Clause means that we cannot use the machinery of the state to practice religious beliefs. ADF is doing exactly what the Establishment Clause prohibits. The Idaho Constitution may be more to the point, providing no “preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” With Labrador’s permission, ADF inhabits Idaho systems to advocate its religious beliefs and acts to enforce ADF’s religious doctrines.

During his campaign, Labrador promised to be the lawyer for the people of the state of Idaho. As it turns out, Labrador has made ADF our lawyer. And the ADF is not “for” the people of the state of Idaho, but instead, the ADF is for the ADF, imposing private religious dictates on all Idahoans.

Contrary to Labrador’s claim that his partnership with the ADF is free, his surrender to the ADF comes at great cost. It has cost Idahoans their constitutional right to be free from state-sponsored religious constraints.

Tom Arkoosh is a former prosecuting attorney of Gem County, a long-time Idaho legal practitioner and former candidate for attorney general of Idaho.