“The U.K.’s persecution of silent prayer represents not only an egregious violation of the fundamental right to free speech and religious liberty, but also a concerning departure from the shared values that ought to underpin U.S.-U.K. relations.”

The National Day of Prayer’s establishment dates back to 1952, when Congress passed a law stating that an annual day of prayer must be declared under each president. President Harry Truman signed the measure into law, but in 1988 the date was officially established as the first Thursday each May. Christian leaders including Billy Graham advocated for the day to be emphasized as a way for the nation to return to Jesus Christ through prayer.

“A state AG’s office has spent more than two years using its coercive subpoena power to target a pro-life pregnancy center without any evidence of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court just unanimously affirmed that demanding private donor information chills First Amendment rights and gets First Choice into federal court. One day later, the AG is racing to a state court to enforce the same subpoena before federal review can occur.”

There are promising uses of AI: transforming cancer detection and diagnostics, the possibility of cures for dreaded diseases, new efficiencies in commerce, or in reducing government bureaucracy. But there are also possibilities fraught with ethical, moral and pragmatic concerns: predictive and generative warfare tactics and weapons, government surveillance and public safety, advanced genetic editing and lab-created embryos. For good or ill, AI is revolutionizing the structures of society.

“The former New Jersey attorney general targeted First Choice because he disagreed with their Christian-based, pro-life mission,” Perkins said. “In this country, Christians have the right to speak freely about their religion and to act on those Biblical beliefs in the broader society. I am grateful that the Supreme Court has once again affirmed this.”

When a school policy intrudes on a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history”—such as parental authority over a child’s upbringing—can courts dismiss the case simply because the school’s conduct wasn’t outrageous enough? Or do parents deserve stronger constitutional protection? The high court chose not to answer.