Into the Deep: Photos of Incredible Creatures from the Ocean’s Depths

 JAN 24, 2022

 JARON SCHNEIDER

The creatures that can be found in the dark depths of the midwater and seafloor range from breathtakingly beautiful, to curious, to terrifying.

From football-sized giant isopods to transparent jellies that glow, the deep sea is brimming with life. In a collaboration with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), the Monterey Bay Aquarium has provided a look at a few of the more interesting creatures that call the dark depth of the ocean home.

A Look at Some of the Ocean’s Residents

Below are a series of photos of some of these incredible creatures, courtesy of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

A Bloody-belly comb jelly glides through the water. | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

A bloody-belly comb jellyfish. | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Lumpfish | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

A Brisingid sea star. | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

A giant isopod, Bathynomus giganteus, crustaceans | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Sea angel, sometimes referred to as a sea butterfly. | ©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Bioluminescence in the Deep Sea

MBARI, which operates separately but in coordination with the Aquarium, has published a video about bioluminescence and why animals create their own light.

MBARI Senior Scientist Steve Haddock and his team are working to decipher the secret language of light in the deep sea. His team’s work has revealed that bioluminescence is actually quite common in the deep. From zooplankton to jellies, fishes, and squid, deep-sea animals have adapted to use light in a variety of ways. MBARI’s work is helping biologists understand how and why these remarkable animals produce their own light.

The information that MBARI has collected is a part of the Into the Deep exhibition that the Monterey Bay Aquarium will launch later this year. The groundbreaking exhibition will offer a rare look at the animals that thrive in the least explored area of the planet and will feature an immersive experience recreating the world of deep-sea bioluminescence.

Into the Deep

The Monterey Bay Aquarium is gearing up for a new exhibition that will focus on some of the creatures that can be found in the largest living space on Earth. Called “Into the Deep,” the exhibit will take visitors through multiple levels of the ocean, starting with the surface waters that are filled with the sun’s light down to the seafloor where giant crabs, bone-eating worms, and giant isopods make their homes near hydrothermal vents.

Most of these creatures have never been seen by a majority of the population up close or in-person and the goal of the Aquarium is to bring attention to these creatures who, while invisible and unknown to so many, nonetheless play a critical role in the health of the planet.

The Aquarium says the exhibition represents a breakthrough in aquarium animal care and life support. Innovations — like the most sophisticated water treatment system the Aquarium has ever designed — replicate the varied conditions needed by deep-sea animals. While all the animals on exhibit can survive at surface pressure, the life support systems created for the exhibition lower water temperatures, adjust pH, and reduce oxygen levels to sustain animals.

“Into the Deep: Exploring Our Undiscovered Ocean” will open on April 9, 2022.

Image credits: Photos copyright and provided courtesy of the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

McConnell wants a policy-free midterm campaign. Others in the GOP are less sure.

"AN ELECTION IS NO TIME TO DEAL WITH SERIOUS ISSUES." 

KIM CAMPBELL, CONSERVATIVE PM OF CANADA

Peter Nicholas and Leigh Ann Caldwell and Frank Thorp V

It’s the minimum that voters often expect of congressional candidates: Spell out what it is they would do if elected.

© Provided by NBC News

Yet inside the Republican Party, key leaders are split on whether to roll out any sort of governing agenda ahead of the midterm elections in November. With President Joe Biden’s approval rating tumbling, one GOP faction, headed by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, is betting that skewering the Democrats is all that’s needed to wrest control of the Senate. Another, led by House GOP chief Kevin McCarthy, is drawing up positions meant to persuade Americans that voting Republican might improve their lives.

Beneath the dueling approach to the midterms lies a more basic question about the party’s direction. Donald Trump first ran for office promising a sharp break from party orthodoxy. He questioned the merits of free trade and called for withdrawing U.S. forces from prolonged Middle East wars. As his presidency wound down, the party devolved into more of a vehicle for Trump to air grievances and punish foes. A candidate eager for Trump’s endorsement in the GOP primaries now stands a better chance by showing fealty to him rather than committing to a set of principles.

In Alaska, Trump endorsed Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy for re-election — so long as Dunleavy, in turn, refused to back Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who voted to convict Trump in the impeachment trial last year. The party’s Trump-centric identity is far removed from the time when Paul Ryan, then House speaker, led a candidate debate in 2016 focused on lifting people out of poverty.

“McConnell, I assume, is hoping that anger with Democrats will carry his members over the finish line,” said Frank Luntz, a pollster who worked with Newt Gingrich, then-GOP House whip, to develop the “Contract with America.”

That 1994 campaign manifesto pledged to cut taxes, curb crime and impose congressional term limits, among other issues. It helped to nationalize the midterm election in ways that helped Republicans capture both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.

“I know from the work I’ve done dating back to 1994 that it’s not enough to be the opposition party,” Luntz said. “You have to give people a reason to vote for you or they stay home.”

When Trump ran for re-election in 2020, the party didn’t release a platform laying out Republican priorities; Trump was the platform. Heading into the midterm campaign season, McConnell is similarly opaque when it comes to his caucus’s priorities should it retake the majority.

“That is a very good question,” he told NBC News. “And I’ll let you know when we take it back. … This midterm election will be a report card on the performance of this entire Democratic government: the president, the House and the Senate.”

The calculation Senate Republican leaders appear to have made is that any proposals they put forward might divert attention from Biden’s troubles. How much to emphasize substance versus personal attacks is a perennial question. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats recaptured the House by keeping a sharp focus on health care — not Trump. Rather than follow that model, Democrat Terry McAuliffe lost the Virginia governor’s race last year through a failed attempt to make the election in some ways a referendum on Trump.

No matter what path the GOP follows, the party finds itself in a strong position. Historically, the president’s party tends to fare poorly in midterm races, and even loyal Democratic fundraisers and operatives anticipate a drubbing come November. An NBC News survey this month suggested that by a 31-point margin, people believe Biden’s performance is worse than expected as opposed to better — the widest gap in the last 30 years. (Fifty-nine percent said the Biden presidency has gone as expected.) Biden opens his second year in office with nearly three-quarters of Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Explaining McConnell’s reasoning, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Republican whip, said, “You don’t want to make yourself the issue. … I think right now they [Democrats] are a target-rich environment. They’re just giving us a lot of stuff to shoot at.”

Taking a different tack, McCarthy is relying on seven House task forces and committees to develop a platform by summer that Republican candidates can present to voters. Several House Republican leaders met at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Miami over two days this week to consider different proposals, including preparing for the next pandemic, combating threats posed by China and defending against cyberattacks.

One who took part was Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee.

“We intend to have a positive agenda,” he said. “We still feel the election is, to some degree, a referendum on the Democrats. But to be fair, you have to recognize there’s skepticism about both parties and Washington’s ability to accomplish anything.”

McCarthy has been consulting privately with Gingrich, who became House speaker in 1995 on the strength of the Republican majority that his Contract with America helped create. McCarthy has similar ambitions.

“We chat regularly because he [McCarthy] wants to develop a positive momentum,” Gingrich, a close ally of Trump, said in an interview. “It’s very likely that he’ll end up as speaker. Well, he doesn’t want a speakership that is totally absorbed in being negative, which is very easy to do. I would draw a real contrast with McConnell, who said recently that they don’t need an agenda.”

Those distinctions aren’t quite so tidy. McCarthy’s grip on the House Republican caucus hinges on Trump, and he risks losing the speaker’s race to a further-right rival should he run afoul of the ex-president. If the conservative House Freedom Caucus expands its ranks in the midterms, McCarthy could face a serious challenge from Trump loyalists who see him as too moderate.

It may be no accident that the policies that he and his GOP colleagues are devising are, in important respects, protective of Trump’s interests and responsive to his peeves. Should it gain subpoena power, a House GOP majority is likely to use it to try to weaken Democrats in the run-up to 2024, when Trump may again be on the ballot. Trump has complained repeatedly that he’s been muzzled by social media companies; McCarthy’s office is vowing to confront tech companies “who we see as attacking free speech, going woke, or cozying up to China.”

Trump has derided Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan pullout. On “Day One,” McCarthy’s office says, Republicans would deploy “various tools at our disposal” to examine Biden’s troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Critics said they weren’t holding their breath for a serious agenda — from McCarthy, or any other Republican.

“It’s impossible to take seriously the notion that McCarthy, who is firmly ensconced in the Trump cult, is going to come out with anything that resembles a series of ideas,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way.

Meanwhile, a recent appearance by Gingrich on Fox News highlighted another consideration: attacking Democrats, not talking policy, may be the way to excite Trump’s base. He predicted that a newly formed Republican majority would use the chamber’s investigative muscle to turn members of the committee examining the Jan. 6 Capitol riot from “wolves” into “sheep.”

“They’re the ones who in fact I think face a real risk of jail for the kinds of laws that they’re breaking,” Gingrich told host Maria Bartiromo.

Kim Campbell | The Canadian Encyclopedia

1993 Federal Election

Problems arose on the campaign’s first day. In an accurate but complex analysis of current economic challenges, Campbell said that unemployment would remain high until the turn of the century. She later answered a reporter’s question about social programs by saying, “This is not the time, I don’t think, to get involved in a debate on very, very serious issues.” The media and many Canadians interpreted her statement to mean that she was secretly planning to cut social programs. It was a turning point. Support for Campbell and her party plummeted. The downward trend became worse when outrage greeted a Progressive Conservative television ad that appeared to mock the partial paralysis of Liberal leader Jean Chrétien’s face. Campbell had not sanctioned the ad (it was approved by her campaign chairman, John Tory) and ordered it be withdrawn. But significant political damage was done.

'After Yang' explores the meaning of life through a broken android

Devindra Hardawar 

In the film After Yang, a father goes to great lengths to save his daughter's best friend. It just so happens this bestie is a humanoid robot, or technosapien, named Yang. He's practically a member of the family, but at the end of the day, he's basically an appliance. Can he be easily replaced, and what’s the value of his artificial life? Like a cross between Black Mirror and Spike Jonze's Her, After Yang explores humanity and existence through the lens of technology, while director Kogonada (Columbus) crafts a vision of the future that feels truly distinct.

After a virtuoso opening sequence, where families compete in a virtual dance contest in their living rooms, Yang (Justin H. Min) malfunctions. He's not just some robotic butler; he's a culture technosapien meant to help Jake's adoptive daughter, Mika (Malea Emma Tjandrawidjaja), learn about her Chinese heritage. Mika has a stronger relationship with Yang, who practically raised her. And for reasons that aren't clear at the start, Jake is a bit disconnected from his family and struggling through a mid-life crisis. (Running a traditional tea shop in the future would do that to you.) Saving Yang is both an attempt to connect to Mika, and to appease his overworked wife Kyra (Jodie Turner-Smith), who's concerned about her listless husband.

Stories around artificial beings and androids aren't anything new — they stretch back to early Jewish legends of golems, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Fritz Lang's Metropolis. But these days, it feels as if it's only a matter of time until we're living alongside our own personal androids. Robotic vacuums are smarter and more affordable, we're regularly shouting voice commands at our phones and smart appliances, and even Tesla claims it's working on an AI-powered humanoid robot (though at this point, that's basically just a marketing stunt). So it's worth exploring how androids could affect our family lives, where they take on roles of childcare and companionship.

Engadget · What's hot at Sundance 2022

Jake's journey to fix Yang isn't much different than what we'd go through to get a computer or smartphone repaired today. He tries to contact the store he bought it from, but it's no longer in business. Yang was also refurbished, which opens the door to surprising issues (something used electronics buyers are all too familiar with).

It turns out Yang had more than one previous owner, and he basically lived a long (and somewhat tragic) life. He was also an experimental model that could record small portions of memories, similar to the small bits of videos we see in Apple's Live Photos. As Jake learns more about Yang, he realizes that he was a thinking being with a fully formed personality. He's not just a helper bot following his programming, he was also endlessly curious about the world around him.

After Yang is a quiet film, filled with contemplative silences and Farrell's forlorn eyes (not a bad thing, to be clear). Kogonada manages to build a world that feels dramatically different from our own, without the flashy holograms and special effects we see in lesser sci-fi films like the Ghost in the Shell remake. Everyone wears loose, robe-like outfits. There's a strong Japanese influence throughout all of the environments, from the Muji-esque minimalism and organic materials in their homes, to natural wood and small gardens in self-driving cars. It's a world far more advanced than ours — genetically optimized clones also appear — but it's also in harmony with nature, like near-future sci-fi through the eyes of Hayao Miyazaki.

The fusion of the natural and man-made world mirrors the way an artificial being like Yang starts to become more human. It's clear that he's driven by some sort of artificial intelligence, but the film doesn't say if his designers also managed to replicate a form of consciousness. Yang is programmed with facts about China, as well as language lessons for Mika, but he speaks more like a wise friend than a robotic teacher.

Like Blade Runner, it seems as if Yang is fully aware of his own limitations. He can show emotion and feelings towards people, but he probably doesn't have the full range of human emotion. He also chases the unknowable, like the way Farrell's character finds himself drawn to sell and explore the world of tea, even though he's not a huge tea fanatic. It’s clear that both characters are searching for some meaning in their lives, but Yang has made peace with his existence in a way that Jake admires (and struggles with himself).

In a world where we actually have robotic companions, it’s not hard to imagine that we’d form deep bonds and mourn them when they’re gone. Losing your robot could eventually be as traumatic as losing a dear pet. But that would also reflect a world where our androids can also profoundly affect our lives. They’d be more than appliances – they’d be family.

Hong Kong allows hamster pet stores to resume business after COVID cull

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Dozens of pet stores that sold hamsters in Hong Kong may resume business from Sunday, Hong Kong's government said, after being shuttered last week and thousands culled over coronavirus fears.

© Reuters/LAM YIK FILE PHOTO: Officers in protective suits at a closed pet shop in Hong Kong

Authorities enraged pet lovers with an order to cull more than 2,200 hamsters after tracing an outbreak to a worker in a shop where 11 hamsters tested positive. Imported hamsters from Holland into the Chinese territory had been cited as the source. All hamster imports remain banned.

The city's Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department said in a statement late on Saturday that it collected 1,134 samples from animals other than hamsters including rabbits and chinchillas, which were all negative.

Five stores, including the "Little Boss" pet shop, which started the outbreak, remained shuttered as they had not yet "passed the virus test," the government said.

"All the other concerned pet shops on the other hand have been thoroughly disinfected and cleaned and the environmental swabs collected from these shops have all passed the COVID-19 virus test," it said.

The government said on Friday it would compensate pet shops trading in hamsters, offering a one-off payment of up to HK$30,000 (US$3,850).

People who had in recent weeks bought hamsters - popular apartment pets in the congested city - were ordered to surrender them for testing and what the government described as "humane dispatch".

Thousands of people offered to adopt unwanted hamsters amid a public outcry against the government and its pandemic advisers, which authorities called irrational. A study published in The Lancet medical journal, which has not yet been peer reviewed, said Hong Kong researchers have found evidence that pet hamsters can spread COVID-19 and linked the animals to human infections in the city.

However, the economic and psychological tolls from Hong Kong's hardline approach to curbing the virus are rapidly rising, residents say, with measures becoming more draconian than those first enforced in 2020.

(Reporting by Farah Master; editing by Grant McCool)

Quebec restaurants are reopening, but some former workers don't plan to go back

MONTREAL — Restaurants in Quebec will be allowed to reopen Monday for the first time in more than a month, but some former workers say they won't be looking for new jobs in the industry

.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Milovan Danielou said he decided to start looking for a new job during the province's second closure of restaurant dining rooms in the fall of 2020, when his then-employer, taco restaurant Grumman '78, closed its main location permanently.

With dining rooms closed and no tourists in the city, there was little work to go around. "Everybody was fighting to find even part-time jobs," he said in a recent interview.

Danielou, who now does data entry, said his new job is less interesting, but the $30-an-hour pay is better, and he's not worried about losing his job if the COVID-19 situation worsens.

"Nothing compares to restaurant work, the rush, the drive, the energy, the team, the people you meet. Nothing compares to that," he said. But it's not enough to draw him back. "You have to pay your rent, you have to survive."

Quebec restaurant dining rooms were ordered closed starting Dec. 20 as the number of COVID-19 cases in the province shot up. Under the new rules, restaurants will be able to open Monday at 50 per cent capacity and there will be limits on how many people from different households can share a table.

Liam Thomas, 32, said that while he decided to leave the industry last summer,when restaurants were open, it wasn't a choice he would have made if he hadn't already lived through two lockdowns.

"I was being yelled at for the millionth time in my cooking career and I just walked out and I never went back," Thomas, a former line cook, said in a recent interview. "It was precipitated by the lockdowns and the knowledge that could happen again, and the instability of the work."

Thomas, who said he started working in restaurants at 18, now works as a transport attendant at a Montreal hospital, helping patients get to X-rays and other appointments within the hospital.

While Thomas said he still sometimes misses the rush of the kitchen, his new job is less stressful, better paid and offers more vacation time.

"The issues that the pandemic exposed were always there for restaurant workers," said Kaitlin Doucette of the Canadian Restaurant Workers Coalition, a group that advocates for better working conditions in the industry. She said workers have long lacked health benefits and paid sick days, and that the precarious nature of work in the industry can lead to abuse and sexual harassment.

One of the biggest challenges of the latest closure in Quebec, Doucette said in a recent interview, is that workers were only eligible for $300 a week in federal aid.

Montrealer Michèle Martel, who worked in bars for 25 years, said she started looking for a new job because that wasn't enough to live on.

"I had no choice. With the amount of money they're giving us, my savings would have disappeared for a third time. It's hard to save money, and when the closings come, the money melts away," she said. "And it's not just financial, I also need to work for my morale, to see people."

When bars and restaurants reopened for the second time in June 2021, Martel said she was confident it would last — most Quebecers were vaccinated and businesses had been following public health orders.

But this third closure has left her afraid that it could happen again. While Martel said she plans to look for a job as a bartender, she also intends to keep working at her new job, in a senior's residence, part-time.

Martin Juneau, the owner of Pastaga, a restaurant in Montreal's Little Italy neighbourhood, said he's worried about finding staff for a reopening that he said feels more like opening for the first time.

"We had a lot of employees who finally moved on to something else, who wanted to go in a different direction, in a different industry," he said in a recent interview.

While Juneau said he closed his dining room before he was ordered to by the provincial government, he's worried that he'll have to do it again. “We’re afraid for next fall, and we’re afraid of not having the energy to get to next fall," he said.

He was forced to close some other businesses, including a restaurant and wine shop, a corner grocery and an ice cream shop, early in the pandemic, and he said they won't be coming back. "We're exactly the opposite of expanding," Juneau said.

Benoit Dessureault, the owner of Chez Delmo in Old Montreal, said he was able to keep paying longtime employees with the help of a food truck. While some of his workers did get laid off, he said he found projects to hire them to work on during the closures.

Still, he said the reopening means the restaurant — which had attracted a lunchtime crowd of lawyers and businesspeople — now plans to focus more on dinner.

"The office towers are still empty, so we can't keep the same business proposition as we had before," Dessureault said in an interview.

Dessureault said he hopes that customers will be more patient — and understanding — when they return to restaurants that still face strict public health rules.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 30, 2022.

———

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press

Few migrants escape Remain in Mexico, despite Biden-era reforms

Rebecca Beitsch 

Just a fraction of migrants subjected to the court-ordered reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy are dodging the program despite a concerted effort by the Biden administration to reduce the legal standard needed to bypass enrollment.

© Getty Images U.S. Border Patrol agents look on after Haitian immigrant families crossed the Rio Grande

December figures released by the Biden administration earlier this month shows that just 12 percent of migrants were able to make the case that they would face danger if sent across the border to Mexico while pursuing asylum claims in the U.S.

The figures were alarming to immigration advocates, who have urged the Biden administration to abandon a policy they say releases asylum seekers into dangerous conditions in Mexico only exacerbated by the arrival of vulnerable migrants forced to wait there for months.

"It just points to how this program can't be fixed," said Kennji Kizuka, a researcher with Human Rights First. "They can sort of jiggle the standards, they can adjust the procedures, but at the end of the day, they just can't make it safe, and they can't do the screenings properly or fairly."

The Biden administration reimplemented what is formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in December, following a court order directing it to carry out the policy "in good faith" as they continue to appeal a lower court ruling.

The program still largely bars asylum seekers from entering the U.S. to wait out their case, continuing the Trump-era practice of sending them across the border to Mexico, but the memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) included various reforms meant to help divert some asylum seekers from the program.

"Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas has repeatedly stated that MPP has endemic flaws, imposed unjustifiable human costs, pulled resources and personnel away from other priority efforts, and failed to address the root causes of irregular migration," DHS said in a statement about the latest data, noting that it is committed to "implementing MPP in the most humane way possible."

DHS has directed border agents to affirmatively ask whether migrants have a fear of being sent to Mexico rather than wait for asylum seekers to raise the issue themselves.

And the department lowered the legal standard to bypass the program, requiring migrants only show a reasonable possibility they will face danger in Mexico, generally considered a one-in-ten chance - a lower threshold than the "more likely than not" standard used under Trump.

"Obviously, you can't actually do the math on persecution. So this just comes down to the discretion of the officer, and there's no appeal process here," Kizuka said.

Early data on the program shows few asylum seekers have been able to successfully escape MPP even though 91 percent of the 267 people initially enrolled in the program in December said they feared for their safety if sent to Mexico.

The 12 percent figure significantly trails those for asylum interviews conducted over the same period that use the same standard. Government figures for December show that nearly 30 percent of asylum seekers outside of MPP were found to have met the legal requirement to establish fear.

Migrants who travel to the U.S. are often fleeing danger and persecution in their own country before making a risky journey to the border that can often lead to another series of tragic events.

But after being taken into U.S. Customs and Border Patrol custody, asylum seekers must outline concerns that are specific to Mexico. Much like in the U.S., migrants must make the case that they would face persecution in Mexico due to their race, gender, or membership in a particular social group.

Being a migrant could qualify as meeting the social group criteria, given the well-documented history of migrants being targeted for crime because of their vulnerability once sent to Mexico. But migrants are often ill-prepared for what is known as a non-refoulement interview (NRI) that determines whether their fear justifies exclusion from MPP.

"The United States should not and cannot, legally, send people back to a country where they will be harmed because of who they are. So here you have a program where people are being sent back to Mexico, and because of who they are, because they are migrants in this very well-known program called MPP, they are extraordinarily vulnerable to kidnapping, to assault, to violence," said Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

"There are literally dozens of reports documenting this extraordinarily high risk of harm. If the standard is being correctly applied, how could anyone not pass their NRI?"

But many migrants struggle to make their case or navigate the labyrinth of requirements for meeting the standard, and they're given just 24 hours to find and consult with an attorney ahead of the interview.

The short timeframe gives little prospect for success as many of the national legal aid groups that provide pro bono legal advice say they won't contract with the government to provide services - a refusal due to both to what some say is the inhumane nature of the program as well as being given a window that is simply too short to meaningfully provide legal advice.

Just 11 migrants secured an attorney ahead of their interview, which is conducted while they are in CBP custody speaking over the phone with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services staff who weigh their claims.

In the confusion, some migrants may not even understand they need to make Mexico-specific claims or that they aren't being interviewed about their overall asylum plea based on issues in their home country.

"For all they know, they're about to be interviewed about their asylum claim and their fear of returning to their country of origin," said Nicholas Palazzo, staff attorney with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center.

It's not that those in custody haven't faced danger - he's had clients that were raped and robbed along the journey.

"In the Mexico context, it doesn't suffice to simply show that you were robbed or kidnapped or suffered any egregious form of violence. You have to show that your perpetrators specifically targeted you because of one of those characteristics," he said.

Under the Biden administration, MPP has also been expanded to include Haiti and other Caribbean nations, meaning a number of Black migrants who may not be Spanish speakers will also be sent to Mexico.

It's another group that Palazzo said should readily fit the criteria for exclusion from MPP but who may struggle on their own to show that they were targeted due to their race or not being a native Spanish speaker.

The handful of asylum seekers who did retain an attorney fared better - 36 percent managed to be removed from MPP and can await their full hearing in the U.S.

While few asylum seekers were able to successfully argue for their diversion from MPP, the data shows that the government decided to remove another 10 percent of migrants after determining they had some other vulnerability that would disqualify them from being sent to Mexico.

Mexico only agreed to participate in the U.S. reinitiation of the program after it secured an agreement to exclude from MPP those with health issues, the elderly, and others who might be vulnerable there, including those who identify as LGBT.

But Kizuka said CBP isn't consistently screening out those people who ought to be excluded from MPP without ever needing to claim fear.

"One of those should be fairly easily identifiable is if someone is LGBT. But again, it's not really clear what screening CBP officers are actually doing because most people we talked to hadn't been asked that question at all," he said.

"Part of the issue is that it's not clear what training the CBP officers have got and what they're being told to do. Even when they're doing the screenings, it's really cursory."

How the release of wild cheetahs can conserve the species in Africa


Thousands of feet in the air, Willem Briers-Louw, a wildlife biologist, surveys the Zambeze Delta in Mozambique via helicopter -- seeking the animal populations he helps to conserve and maintain in the bushland.

Cheetahs, one of Briers-Louw's subjects and the fastest land animal in the world, could get a boost to its population if a new conservation method researchers are practicing in Africa is successful.

Biologists in Mozambique released a group of wild cheetahs in a "massive" protected area in the Zambeze Delta in August as part of a reintroduction project they believe is "crucial" to conserve the species, Briers-Louw, a wildlife biologist working on the project with the Cabela Family Foundation, the organization that funded the reintroduction project, told ABC News.

From the two-seat Robinson R22 helicopter, Briers-Louw can track the animals wherever they go and monitor their behavior -- what they're eating, whether they're mating, when a litter of cubs is born. It's one of the perks of the job, Briers-Louw said.

"Watching them at full speed chasing down [cleft-back] antelope is truly incredible to see," he said.

© Tamar Kendon A group of wild cheetahs were released into Mozambique's Zambeze Delta in August 2021 as part of a reintroduction project for cheetah conservation.

The project was suggested by the foundation's wildlife trust coordinators after a similar reintroduction for lions in the Zambeze Delta was successful, Briers-Louw said. In addition to the ample space and limited poaching in the preserve, the cheetahs are not prey for lions and have plenty of food sources to sustain a decent population.

Biologists found historical evidence that cheetahs occupied the area in the past after finding a book from 1914 described the animals, which was imperative for the reintroduction to be successful, Briers-Louw said.MORE: Protecting natural resources could lead to less armed conflict: Report

Eleven cheetahs from South Africa and one from Malawi were transported to Mozambique over the summer. The big cats were stationed in a fenced area for months to get acclimated before the gates were opened to their new home, Briers-Louw said.

Two additional females, described as "valuable additions to the founder population," were released in December. The researchers hope to maintain an interconnected conservation project where different countries work together to maintain as healthy a cheetah population as possible, Briers-Louw said

.

© Tamar Kendon A group of wild cheetahs were released into Mozambique's Zambeze Delta in August 2021 as part of a reintroduction project for cheetah conservation.

What makes the project "novel" is the cheetahs were released into a sizable, unfenced area that could possibly support up to 100 cheetahs in the future, he added. In fenced preserves, a male cheetah looking to explore and find females is likely to hit an electric fence and turn around, Tamar Kendon, another wildlife biologist with the Cabela Family Foundation, told ABC News.

"It's totally open, and they're not constricted or not confined to a fenced area, so they can move pretty much wherever they want to," Briers-Louw said. "And so we've seen quite a lot of exploratory movement within the first four or five months.

"MORE: Rhino poaching in South Africa declines dramatically due to COVID-19 lockdown, officials say

The cheetahs' newfound ability to wander causes "a bit of stress" for the researchers and presents a possibility for the need to collect them and bring them back, Kendon said.

Conservationists have been introducing cheetahs in small, fenced preserves since 1999, Briers-Louw said. Once cubs are born, they need new homes because those preserves can't support larger populations.

"So Africa, at that time, was the only country with a growing cheetah population," until biologists began practicing similar efforts around the world, Briers-Louw added.© Tamar Kendon A group of wild cheetahs were released into Mozambique's Zambeze Delta in August 2021 as part of a reintroduction project for cheetah conservation.

All of the cheetahs seem to be thriving in their new habitat and seem to have started fixed movement areas, Briers-Louw said. The researchers track them on the ground, aerially via helicopter and through satellite imagery, which allows them to ensure they're thriving and monitor other behaviors, such as mating, Briers-Louw said. Each cheetah is also outfitted with a GPS collar in case they move outside of the preserve, Kendon said.

Briers-Louw emphasized that it's "not all sunshine and roses" for the health of cheetah populations around the world, and they were "strongly" on the way to extinction for the better part of two decades.MORE: Animal conservation groups to sue federal government over dwindling giraffe population

Cheetahs are currently listed as vulnerable, with their populations deceasing, on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species. There are currently about 6,700 mature cheetahs in the world, according to the IUCN.

They only have about 9% of their historic range, and of that population, 30% are in protected reserves, Briers-Louw said. The main threats facing cheetahs are habitat loss, fragmentation of habitat and poaching, but they are also at risk of becoming trapped in snares placed for bushmeat, Kendon said

.

© Tamar Kendon A group of wild cheetahs were released into Mozambique's Zambeze Delta in August 2021 as part of a reintroduction project for cheetah conservation.

The Zambeze Delta historically contained thousands of animals, but years of armed conflict and poaching led to a sharp decline of wildlife in the area, Briers-Louw said. While the Zambeze Delta has experienced a massive resurgence in animal populations in recent years, poaching still remains the biggest threat to carnivores in the region.

But the conservationists believe they are at a turning point where wildlife can once again thrive.

"Even though poaching is the biggest threat to the carnivores, we are at the point where it's fairly controlled and limited to the point where it shouldn't have any effect on the population," he said.

ABC News' Morgan Winsor contributed to this report.

Ceremony in Quebec City marks fifth anniversary of Quebec City mosque shooting

QUEBEC — At times, Hakim Chambaz paused as he spoke at a memorial marking the fifth anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque attack, overcome with emotion.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Chambaz, one of the survivors of the attack that left six men dead and five others severely injured, spoke with a shaking voice about how the experience will always be with him.

"There was a choice between being silent and trying to forget and between confronting this tragedy and taking lessons from this horrible part of our lives," said Chambaz, who helped start a group that supports victims of other terrorist attacks.

"We hope for a better future for our children, above all for the families of the victims, and we pray to Allah to welcome them in their paradise," he said.

The ceremony at the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Centre was one of several that took place across Canada to honour the sombre anniversary, as well as the first National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action Against Islamophobia, which was proclaimed last April.

Aymen Derbali, who was paralyzed in the attack, said the ceremony was part of "our duty to remember our brothers who fell that night under the bullets of hate."

His voice shook as he called on people to work together to ensure that similar events never happen again.

The Quebec City event, outside the mosque in Ste-Foy, a suburban borough of the provincial capital, was largely virtual due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the general public encouraged to watch the commemoration online.

Premier François Legault; Quebec City Mayor Bruno Marchand; federal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos, who represents Quebec City in Parliament; and Ghislain Picard, the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador also spoke at the event.

Marchand described the men who died as Quebecers who were known for their contribution to the community.

"Fathers, who are no longer here to look after their children, participate in the important events of their lives, to take the hand of their wives, share the pride of a great achievement with their colleagues, men who are no longer here to reach out to a friend in need," he said. "These were six of our own."

Among those who spoke at the commemoration was Nusaiba Al-Azem, the vice-chair of the London Muslim Mosque in London, Ont. On June 6, 2021, four members of a Muslim family were killed in that city while taking a walk. Police have said they believe the family members were targeted because of their faith, and the man accused in the case is now facing murder and terrorism charges.

Al-Azem said the commemorations are not for members of the Muslim community, because the Islamophobia is a daily reminder of the deadly attacks.

"We flinch when trucks speed by, we steel ourselves before walking into our places of worship, we feel unsafe in our own backyards, we brush off ignorant comment, after ignorant comment, after ignorant comment," she said. "We are overlooked for work opportunities and promotions, and, in some places, we're unable to earn a living while wearing a hijab, because the state allows it to be that way. We need no reminder, we are commemorating every day."

A commemorative ceremony took place at the London mosque earlier on Saturday.

In Ottawa, organizers of an interfaith, in-person vigil intended to commemorate the attack said they decided to move it online over fears that the event might be targeted by members of a convoy that is in the city to protest COVID-19 regulations.

Fareed Khan, who organized the event with his group Canadians United Against Hate, said while the protestors are describing themselves as being in favour of "freedom," they're depriving others of their liberties.

"They're talking about the freedom to be able to be irresponsible individuals and not be vaccinated and possibly spread COVID-19 around Canada," he said in an interview. "Meanwhile, our freedom has been deprived, our freedom to gather peacefully to remember victims of a brutal crime on a very sacred day. It is frustrating and it's angering."

Khan said that while his group did not receive any direct threats, the decision to move the vigil -- which had been scheduled to take place in downtown Ottawa -- was made after consulting with police and city officials.

He said he'd like to see real action from Canada's political leaders to fight Islamophobia and other forms of hate.

"We can't let voices of hate target minority communities, whether it's Muslims, or Jews, or Blacks, or Indigenous people, Asians, LGBTQ, we've got to make sure we stand up to those voices," Khan said. "We've got to actually at times go into the streets and be visible and say, 'no, we will not stand for this in our country.'"

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 29, 2022.

———

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Jacob Serebrin, The Canadian Press

The US Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had been a member of the Supreme Court for less than a month when she cast the key vote in one of the most consequential religion cases of the past century.

© Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images Anti-abortion activists pray outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2021.

LONG READ

Ian Millhiser 40 mins ago

Months earlier, when the seat she would fill was still held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court had handed down a series of 5-4 decisions establishing that churches and other houses of worship must comply with state occupancy limits and other rules imposed upon them to slow the spread of Covid-19.

As Chief Justice John Roberts, the only Republican appointee to join these decisions, explained in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020), “our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States.” And these officials’ decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.”

But this sort of judicial humility no longer enjoyed majority support on the Court once Barrett’s confirmation gave GOP justices a 6-3 supermajority. Twenty-nine days after Barrett became Justice Barrett, she united with her fellow Trump appointees and two other hardline conservative justices in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), a decision striking down the very sort of occupancy limits that the Court permitted in South Bay. The upshot of this decision is that the public’s interest in controlling a deadly disease must give way to the wishes of certain religious litigants.

Just as significantly, Roman Catholic Diocese revolutionized the Court’s approach to lawsuits where a plaintiff who objects to a state law on religious grounds seeks an exemption from that law.

Before Roman Catholic Diocese, religious objectors typically had to follow a “neutral law of general applicability” — meaning that these objectors must obey the same laws that everyone else must follow. Roman Catholic Diocese technically did not abolish this rule, but it redefined what constitutes a “neutral law of general applicability” so narrowly that nearly any religious conservative with a clever lawyer can expect to prevail in a lawsuit.

That decision is part of a much bigger pattern. Since the Court’s Republican majority became a supermajority, the Court has treated religion cases as its highest priority.

It’s made historic changes to the law governing religion even before it moved on to other major priorities for the conservative movement, such as restricting abortion or expanding gun rights. The Court has also taken on new religion-related cases at a breakneck pace. In the eight years of the Obama presidency, the Court decided just seven religious liberty cases, or fewer than one per year. By contrast, by the second anniversary of Barrett’s confirmation as a justice, the Court most likely will have decided at least seven — and arguably as many as 10 — religious liberty cases with Barrett on the Court.

In fairness, many factors contribute to this uptick in religion cases being head by the Court, and at least some of these factors emerged while Barrett was still an obscure law professor. The Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), for example, opened the door to new kinds of lawsuits that would have failed before that decision was handed down. And lawyers for Christian conservative litigants have no doubt responded to Hobby Lobby by filing more — and more aggressive — lawsuits.

This piece did not attempt to quantify the number of times the Court has been asked to decide religious liberty cases, only the number of times it decided to take the case.

But the bottom line is that the federal judiciary is fast transforming into a forum to hear the grievances of religious conservatives. And the Supreme Court is rapidly changing the rules of the game to benefit those conservatives.
The Court’s new interest in religion cases, by the numbers

As mentioned above, the Supreme Court heard fewer than one religious liberty case every year during the eight years of the Obama presidency.

In deriving this number, I had to make some judgment calls regarding what counts as a “religious liberty” case. For the purposes of this article, I’m defining that term as any Supreme Court decision that is binding on lower courts, and that interprets the First Amendment’s free exercise or establishment clause. I also include decisions interpreting two federal statutes — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act — both of which limit the government’s ability to enforce its policies against people who object to them on religious grounds.

I focused on these two constitutional provisions and these two federal laws because they deal directly with the obligations the government owes to people of faith and its ability to involve itself in matters of religion.

My definition of a “religious liberty” case excludes some Supreme Court cases involving religious institutions that applied general laws or constitutional provisions. Shortly after Obama became president, for example, the Court denied a religious group’s request to erect a monument in a public park. Yet, while this case involved a religious organization, the specific legal issue involved the First Amendment’s free speech clause, not any religion-specific clause. So I did not classify that case as a religious liberty case.

In any event, using this metric, I identified seven religious liberty cases decided during Obama’s presidency,¹ the most consequential of which was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Interestingly, the Court did not decide significantly more religious liberty cases in the three years that Donald Trump was president prior to the pandemic, just four in total.² The Court then did decide a rush of pandemic-related religious liberty cases in 2020, including South Bay and Roman Catholic Diocese.
There’s no doubt that the Court’s new majority is eager break things and move quickly

But things really took off once Justice Barrett was confirmed in the week before the 2020 election. As noted above, the Court handed down Roman Catholic Diocese, a hugely consequential case that reimagined the Court’s approach to the Free Exercise Clause, less than a month after Barrett took office. Just a few months later, the Court handed down Tandon v. Newsom (2021), which clarified that all lower courts are required to follow the new rule laid out in Roman Catholic Diocese.

© Alex Wong/Getty Images Then-President Donald Trump watches as US Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is sworn in by fellow Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, holds a Bible on the South Lawn of the White House on October 26, 2020.

Notably, both Roman Catholic Diocese and Tandon were decided on the Court’s “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency decisions and other expedited matters that the Court typically decided in brief orders that offered little analysis. In the Trump years, however, the Court started frequently using the shadow docket to hand down decisions that upended existing law.

On the merits docket, the ordinary mix of cases that receive full briefing and oral argument, the Court decided two religious liberty cases during Barrett’s first term on the Court, Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) — though Barrett was recused in Tanzin and the Court announced it would hear Fulton before Barrett joined the Court. Three other religious liberty cases (Ramirez v. Collier, Carson v. Makin, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District) are still awaiting a decision on the Court’s merits docket.

Meanwhile, three other shadow docket cases arguably belong on the list of important religious liberty cases decided since Barrett joined the Court, although these cases produced no majority opinion and thus did not announce a legal rule that lower courts must follow. In Does v. Mills (2021) and Dr. A v. Hochul (2021), the Court rejected claims by health care workers who sought a religious exemption from a Covid vaccination mandate. And, in Dunn v. Smith (2021), the Court appeared to back away from a gratuitously cruel decision involving the religious liberties of death row inmates that it handed down in 2019.

So, to summarize, by the time the Court’s current term wraps up in June, the Court will likely hand down decisions in three merits docket cases — Ramirez, Carson, and Kennedy, although it is possible that Kennedy will not be scheduled for argument until next fall. Add in the two merits docket decisions from last term and the landmark shadow docket decisions in Roman Catholic Diocese and Tandon, and that’s seven religious liberty decisions the Court is likely to hand down before Barrett celebrates her second anniversary as a justice.

Meanwhile, the Court only handed down seven religious liberty cases during all eight years of the Obama presidency.

So what do all of these religion cases actually say?

As the Does and Dr. A cases indicate, the Court’s 6-3 Republican majority still hands occasional defeats to conservative religious parties. It also sometimes hands them very small victories. Fulton, for example, could have overruled a seminal precedent from 1990, and given religious conservatives a sweeping right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Instead, the Fulton opinion was very narrow and is unlikely to have much impact beyond that particular case.

But, for the most part, the Court’s most recent religion cases have been extraordinarily favorable to the Christian right, and to conservative religious causes generally. Many of the Court’s most recent decisions build on earlier cases, such as Hobby Lobby, which started to move its religious jurisprudence to the right even before Trump’s justices arrived. But the pace of this rightward march accelerated significantly once Trump made his third appointment to the Court.

Broadly speaking, three themes emerge from these cases.
Exceptions for conservative religious objectors

First, the Court nearly always sides with religious conservatives who seek an exemption from the law, even when granting such an exemption is likely to injure others.

The Hobby Lobby decision, which held that many employers with religious objections to birth control could defy a federal regulation requiring them to include contraceptive care in their employees’ health plans, was an important turning point in the Court’s approach to religious objectors. Prior to Hobby Lobby, religious exemptions were not granted if they would undermine the rights of third parties. As the Court suggested in United States v. Lee (1982), an exemption that “operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees” should not be granted. (Indeed, Lee held that exemptions typically should not be granted at all in the business context.)

Initially, the new rule announced in Hobby Lobby, which permits religious objectors to diminish the rights of others, only applied to rights established by federal law. Under the federal RFRA statute, religious objectors are entitled to some exemptions from federal laws that they would not be entitled to if their state enacted an identical law. As mentioned above, religious objectors must comply with state laws so long as they are “neutral” and have “general applicability” — meaning that they apply with equal force to religious and secular actors.

That brings us to Roman Catholic Diocese and Tandon, which redefined what qualifies as a neutral law of general applicability so narrowly that hardly any laws will qualify. (A more detailed explanation of this redefinition can be found here and here.)

Indeed, Roman Catholic Diocese and Tandon permitted religious objectors to defy state public health rules intended to slow the spread of a deadly disease. If the Court is willing to place the narrow interests of religious conservatives ahead of society’s broader interest in protecting human life, it seems likely that the Court will be very generous in doling out exemptions to such conservatives in the future.
Fewer rights for disfavored groups

While the Court has been highly solicitous toward conservative Christian groups, it’s been less sympathetic to religious liberty claims brought by groups that are not part of the Republican Party’s core supporters.

The most glaring example of this double standard is Trump v. Hawaii (2018), in which the Court’s Republican appointees upheld then-President Trump’s policy banning most people from several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States. The Court did so, moreover, despite the fact that Trump repeatedly bragged about his plans to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

© Win McNamee/Getty Images Protesters demonstrate against then-President Trump’s Muslim travel ban as protesters gather outside the US Supreme Court following a court-issued immigration ruling on June 26, 2018. The 5-4 ruling upheld Trump’s policy imposing limits on travel from several primarily Muslim nations.

The Trump administration claimed that its travel plan was justified by national security concerns, and the Court held that it typically should defer to the president on such matters. But that does not change the fact that singling out Muslims for inferior treatment solely because they are Muslim violates the First Amendment. And, in any event, it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court would have shown similar deference if Trump had attempted a shutdown of Roman Catholics entering the United States.

Similarly, in Dunn v. Ray (2019), the Court’s Republican appointees ruled against a Muslim death row inmate who sought to have his imam present at his execution, even though the state permitted Christian inmates to have a spiritual adviser present. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause ... is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.”

In fairness, the Court does not always reject religious liberty claims brought by Muslims, even if those claims prevail less often than in similar cases brought by conservative Christians. In Holt v. Hobbs (2015), for example, the Court sided with an incarcerated Muslim man who wished to grow a short beard as an act of religious devotion.

After Dunn triggered a bipartisan backlash, moreover, the Court appeared to back away for a while. Nevertheless, during November’s oral argument in another prison-religion case, this one brought by a Christian inmate who wishes to have a pastor lay hands on him during his execution, several justices appeared less concerned with whether ruling against this inmate would violate the Constitution — and more concerned with whether permitting such suits would create too much work for the justices themselves.

Thus, while the Court typically sides with conservative Christians in religious liberty cases, people of different faiths (or even Christians pursuing causes that aren’t aligned with political conservatism) may be less likely to earn the Court’s favor.
The wall of separation between church and state is in deep trouble

Several of the justices are openly hostile to the very idea that the Constitution imposes limits on the government’s ability to advance one faith over others. At a recent oral argument, for example, Justice Neil Gorsuch derisively referred to the “so-called separation of . . . church and state.”

Indeed, it appears likely that the Court may even require the government to subsidize religion, at least in certain circumstances.

At December’s oral arguments in Carson v. Makin, for example, the Court considered a Maine program that provides tuition vouchers to some students, which they can use to pay for education at a secular private school when there’s no public school nearby. Though the state says it wishes to remain “neutral and silent” on matters of religion and not allow its vouchers to go to private religious schools, many of the justices appeared to view this kind of neutrality as unlawful. “Discriminating against all religions,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested, is itself a form of anti-religious discrimination that violates his conception of the Constitution.

For many decades, the Court held the opposite view. As the Court held in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

But Everson’s rule is now dead. And the Court appears likely to require secular taxpayers to pay for religious education, at least under some circumstances.
Why is the Court hearing so many religion cases?

There are several possible explanations for why the Court is hearing so many more religion cases than it used to, and only some of these explanations stem from the Court’s new 6-3 Republican majority.

The most significant non-political explanation for the uptick in cases is the pandemic, which triggered a raft of public health orders that religious groups sought exemptions from in the Supreme Court. Though a less ideological Court would not have used one of these cases to revolutionize its approach to the free exercise clause, as it did in Roman Catholic Diocese, the Court likely would have weighed in on many of these cases even if it had a Democratic majority.

Similarly, some explanations for the uptick in cases predate the confirmation of Justice Barrett. The Hobby Lobby decision, for example, sent a loud signal that the Court would give serious consideration to religious liberty claims that once would have been turned away as meritless. That decision undoubtedly inspired lawyers for conservative religious litigants to file lawsuits that they otherwise would not have brought in the first place.

The Court also started frequently using the shadow docket to hand down highly consequential decisions well before Barrett joined the Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the Court was using shadow docket cases to grant “extraordinary” favors to Trump as recently as 2019.

But there’s no doubt that the Court’s new majority is eager to break things and move quickly. Ordinarily, for example, if the Court were going to fundamentally rethink its approach to an important provision of the Constitution, it would insist upon full briefing, conduct an oral argument, and spend months deliberating over any proposed changes. Instead, Roman Catholic Diocese was handed down less than a month after the Court had the votes it needed to rewrite its approach to the free exercise clause.

There are also worrisome signs that the Court’s new majority cares much less than its predecessors about stare decisis, the doctrine that courts should typically follow past precedents. Just look at how the Court has treated Roe v. Wade if you want a particularly glaring example of the new majority’s approach to precedents it does not like.

Roman Catholic Diocese was handed down just six months after the Court’s contrary ruling in South Bay. And there’s no plausible argument that the cases reached different outcomes because of material distinctions between the two cases. The only real difference between the two cases was that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat on the Court in May 2020, and Amy Coney Barrett held Ginsburg’s seat by November. That was enough reason to convince this Court to abandon decades of precedent establishing that religious institutions typically have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The Court’s current majority, in other words, is itching for a fight over religion. And it holds little regard for established law. That means that a whole lot is likely to change, and very quickly.

¹ The seven Obama-era religious liberty cases that I identified are Salazar v. Buono (2010), Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012), Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Holt v. Hobbs (2015), and Zubik v. Burwell (2016).

² The four religious liberty cases from Trump’s pre-pandemic presidency are Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (2017), Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), Trump v. Hawaii (2018), and American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019).