SEKULOW

Narrator: Today on Sekulow, CNN faces backlash over their framing of a terror attack. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host.

Will Haynes: Welcome to Sekulow, I'm Will Haynes. I'm joined in studio by Jordan Sekulow. We'll be joined by senior managing counsel for the ACLJ Christy Compagnone to tell us about a major victory the ACLJ got in federal court at the appeals court level.

But today we're going to start off with something that's not surprising based off who the source is, but still shocking nonetheless. You remember over the weekend there was an attempted terror attack against people expressing their First Amendment right protesting outside of Gracie Mansion in New York, the residence of the mayor.

Two individuals ran forward, screamed "Allahu Akbar," and threw IEDs into the crowd. It is very fortunate that these did not explode and cause mass injury and death. They have already been arraigned. Both of the individuals were caught and they were said to be inspired by ISIS. They lamented that the Boston Marathon bombings only killed three people. These were not individuals that were all of a sudden caught up in something.

But yet, if you follow CNN on X, you may have seen this post: "Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could have been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside of Mayor Soran Mamdani's home. Here's what we know so far."

The framing harks back to the "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests that happened around the George Floyd incident. It is CNN doing what CNN does. They have since taken that post down and updated it saying that it doesn't reflect the gravity of the incident and goes against their editorial standards. But Jordan, this is CNN. This is what they do and actually a major reason why we are at the Supreme Court going against CNN right now.

Jordan Sekulow: That's right because even this, you start wondering who they're focusing on. The images they show around the event sometimes will be the MAGA protesters. Were those the people that they're trying to indicate to you? If you're just looking at the newspaper, these are the people that were the problem.

Second, the idea that they were just kind of normal guys going into the city and their life changed. No, they intentionally came into the city to cause people to die in the name of terrorism, an ISIS-inspired attack. They were not two guys who people just randomly came up to and said, "Hey, will you throw these bombs or put these bombs in strategic locations while there is a pro-conservative rally going on outside the mayor's office?"

No, these were sleeper cells likely, or those lone wolves who were inspired by ISIS. They had no other task going into New York City on that beautiful spring day than to kill Americans and others who were protesting against the mayor and supporting Israel.

When we come back, we have an update on that cert petition that we have before the Supreme Court taking on CNN. We'll get to that, but also I want to remind you this is our seven days of global impact here at the ACLJ where your impact is doubled. We can't do all this work that we do around the world without your support.

I want to remind you of what we even talked about yesterday, a big victory in Pakistan for someone who was facing severe sentences over violation of their blasphemy laws. We have four individuals on death row that we represent right now. Double your impact around the globe at aclj.org/global.

Narrator: Right now your most sacred rights are under attack. Your right to free speech, your right to worship, your right to educate your children the way you choose. If successful, these attacks will have a destructive impact on the future of our Republic. We're fighting in courtrooms across the country to have a lasting impact. Defending and upholding our values that this nation was founded on. From protecting the rights of kids to pray and share their faith.

The best thing you can do is take a stand. There's nothing too small. A kid who wants to start a Bible club is how the ACLJ got its first case to the US Supreme Court. And today we will take that case as long as we need it. Every victory makes a major impact and it's only possible because of the support of ACLJ members and champions. This is your opportunity to double your impact to defend freedom for you, your children, and generations to come. Go to aclj.org/impact and have your tax-deductible donation doubled today.

Narrator: We've witnessed monumental legal victories from defending the 14th Amendment and protecting our sacred American right to vote, the overturning of Roe versus Wade, and standing up for the religious liberty of our kids and seniors. But even with the many historic wins we've achieved, the battle is far from over.

The attacks on our constitutionally protected rights persist. Countless unborn babies remain in jeopardy, and across the globe, innocent Christians are being targeted and killed across this country and around the world. This fight isn't just the ACLJ's, it's all of ours. It belongs to every American who wants to preserve the values and beliefs on which this nation was founded.

None of the victories we've won would have been possible without the unwavering support of ACLJ members and ACLJ champions. It's been an honor to fight for you all these years. Join us in fighting for freedom. Have your donation doubled at aclj.org/freedom.

Will Haynes: Welcome back to Sekulow, Will Haynes here joined in studio by Jordan Sekulow. We are talking about this statement from CNN that they put out in the wake of the attempted terror attack in New York City over the weekend where they said: "Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could have been a normal day enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim protest outside Mayor Soran Mamdani's home. Here's what we know so far."

Now that post has been taken down. They have said that a post regarding the two individuals arrested for throwing homemade bombs outside New York City Mayor Soran Mamdani's home failed to reflect the gravity of the incident and thereby breaching the editorial standards we require for all our reporting. It has therefore been deleted.

Jordan, you laugh because you could be crying in the sense that this is how they are trying to mislead the American people at a time when our FBI has said the security is heightened, that we have to watch out for sleeper cells.

Jordan Sekulow: They've picked up these kind of old-school ways of communicating with spies where they use certain words that they can then use as a codebook to decipher and put that into a message. Yet CNN tries to act like these are just two regular guys who decided, within minutes, that they were going to build a bomb while they were in New York City and then go to a known protest of conservatives and throw it at them or leave it at them to kill as many as possible.

That's not a normal day in New York. They didn't put those bombs together while they were deciding, "Oh we should commit an act of terror." They were ISIS-inspired. It was intentional. They premeditated this attack and that's what the New York Times forgot. This was a premeditated attack, thankfully thwarted, on fellow Americans because of their political or religious views.

Will Haynes: Even the fact that CNN frames it as "In less than an hour their lives would drastically change." Why, because they got caught? No, their lives were consistent it feels like up to that point from whenever they became radicalized and decided to commit an act of terror. I feel like that is when their life changed, not when they were arrested and thankfully their plot was not carried out.

Yes, the change for them was that they are no longer free to commit terror, but yet CNN has to frame it in the most absurd way. When you have Brian Stelter criticizing his own network about the framing of it, you know you've gone too far. Because that is the king of mis-framing things and spin at CNN and he said the story itself was solid, but the tweet was outrageous.

They want the clickbait. They need the clickbait. So the story itself more and more matters so little because people look and they retweet before they even click on that link because they like the idea, they like the headline, or they agree with it. That can happen on both sides of the aisle, but we certainly see it more on the left. This clickbait, this idea that it's just these guys and their life changed forever.

Well thank God they will be behind bars hopefully for the rest of their life or for a very long time because they could have killed, not just changed people's life, but killed people because of the premeditated act of terror inspired by ISIS that they were committed to carrying out. Their attack thankfully was thwarted. These aren't two normal guys. These are two dangerous terrorists.

Once again, that is one of the reasons, not this story specifically, but goes into why we are at the Supreme Court right now. Because CNN frames things that are outside of the truth. We know that because in a case, Dershowitz versus CNN, of which we have a cert petition pending at the Supreme Court, CNN decided to take something that Professor Alan Dershowitz said during the first Trump impeachment trial on in the well of the Senate, something that was documented widely, played in real-time, and could have been fact-checked by CNN.

They decided to take out the context of what he said and air the hypothetical that he said as if that was his point, and then continuously went with that and claimed it was something new called the Dershowitz doctrine.

The lower courts all said, "Listen, if it weren't for New York Times versus Sullivan, this precedent at the Supreme Court, he was defamed." By all definitions of the law, Professor Dershowitz was defamed by CNN. However, we have a problem. Supreme Court precedent. That is exactly what we are fighting at the Supreme Court right now. That precedent was something that Professor Dershowitz himself was a clerk and helped crafting the opinion that even he says is now no longer how things should be going because of the nature of the world today.

But here's the other catch. CNN tried to not have to respond. We filed our petition and they met at the deadline, filed a notice that they were waiving their right to respond to our cert petition. The Supreme Court said, "Not so fast. We want to hear from you, CNN." So CNN was then ordered to produce a response.

Then CNN said, "Okay well we're not ready," so they asked for an extension, which is normal and granted by the Supreme Court. Their answer is now due April 17th. So just over a month from today, we will see what CNN has to say for themselves in this and then we get to file a reply by May 1st.

Jordan Sekulow: And Will, let me explain the legal strategy there by CNN. They don't reply initially because they want to act like this is not a serious lawsuit and they think the court will just never take this, dismiss it, and doesn't even need their reasoning. When the court came back, that is huge, especially in a case that is challenging Supreme Court precedent, stare decisis, something the courts and lower courts have relied on since the New York Times versus Sullivan case.

They are really thinking about, at least four of those justices, about hearing the arguments both from our briefing but now requiring CNN to brief it and then potentially taking up the case to the US Supreme Court for oral argument. The fact that CNN was forced to reply is good news. It's not 100% that that case, there never is 100%, that it's going to get all the way to a hearing at the US Supreme Court with a final decision.

But in a case of this magnitude, overturning a precedent which has become something that it was never intended to be. It was about elected officials, people who were officers of the government paid for by taxpayers. Not personal individuals who happen to have a high profile because of their business position or their abilities or the fact that they appear on television news. This again folks would be likely, when you move aside maybe the overturning of Roe versus Wade, our early cases establishing religious liberty as speech that you can't discriminate which we're fighting all the time. But when you come to overturning a precedent like New York Times versus Sullivan, that is gigantic in legal history.

Will Haynes: Once again, this wasn't the only thing that CNN had to apologize for around this story within the last 24 hours. This is Abby Phillip, how she opened her show and how she framed this attempted terror attack. Let's go ahead and play.

Abby Phillip: Two Republicans say Muslims don't belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York's Mayor Zoran Mamdani and the House Speaker Mike Johnson says nothing really to condemn those comments. Another special guest is going to be with us at the table.

Will Haynes: Once again, Abby Phillip. They are trying so hard to make this about racist conservatives. That is their goal. They want to make this another racism play against conservatives. She said, "Two Republicans say that Muslims don't belong here after an attempted terror attack against New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani." Wait, what? That's who the target of this terror attack was?

Well she got called out for it and this morning, not on her show, said on X, put this up about three hours ago: "I want to correct something I said last night. The bombs thrown in New York City over the weekend by ISIS-inspired attackers was thrown into a crowd of anti-Muslim protesters and not specifically targeted at Mayor Mamdani. The wording was inaccurate and I didn't catch it ahead of time, I apologize for the error."

They are just stacking up factual inaccuracies these days at CNN. They are trying so desperately to frame a narrative. They're not reporting, this is not reporting. This is trying to sell a narrative to the American people and it's not working. And we will call them out when this happens and if necessary, we will take it to court like we are doing currently with the cert petition at the Supreme Court.

Folks, this is also our global impact week, seven days of global impact here at the ACLJ where you can double your impact both here and around the world by going to aclj.org/global. That is aclj.org/global. When we come back, we have a major update from a big win here at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and much more.

Narrator: We've witnessed monumental legal victories from defending the 14th Amendment and protecting our sacred American right to vote, the overturning of Roe versus Wade, and standing up for the religious liberty of our kids and seniors. But even with the many historic wins we've achieved, the battle is far from over.

The attacks on our constitutionally protected rights persist. Countless unborn babies remain in jeopardy, and across the globe, innocent Christians are being targeted and killed across this country and around the world. This fight isn't just the ACLJ's, it's all of ours. It belongs to every American who wants to preserve the values and beliefs on which this nation was founded.

None of the victories we've won would have been possible without the unwavering support of ACLJ members and ACLJ champions. It's been an honor to fight for you all these years. Join us in fighting for freedom. Have your donation doubled at aclj.org/freedom.

Narrator: Right now your most sacred rights are under attack. Your right to free speech, your right to worship, your right to educate your children the way you choose. If successful, these attacks will have a destructive impact on the future of our Republic. We're fighting in courtrooms across the country to have a lasting impact.

Every victory makes a major impact and it's only possible because of the support of ACLJ members and champions. This is your opportunity to double your impact to defend freedom for you, your children, and generations to come. Go to aclj.org/impact and have your tax-deductible donation doubled today.

Will Haynes: Welcome back to Sekulow and we are joined now by senior managing counsel Christy Compagnone to tell us about a major victory out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a case that you've heard us talk about for quite some time now, as these legal battles many times are not quick.

But this involves a teacher in Texas that was told originally you cannot pray anywhere you can be seen by a student. We took that to court and it has gone now part of this case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Christy, first give us some back story on what we were taking to the court of appeals and then also what we are now seeing.

Christy Compagnone: Of course. So when we were in the district court in Texas, we had gone ahead and filed our complaint and then there was something called a motion to dismiss on that complaint. Essentially what that was is it says that none of these facts, if you take them all to be true, are going to support a victory or a win in court.

One of the biggest reasons that they argued that we could not win is because the principal, who is the one who told our client Stacy Barber that she could not pray in front of students and she could not pray at the pole, that he had qualified immunity, which meant as a government official, he can't be sued for the things that he says as a government official.

Of course we argued that and our district court judge said that yes, that he can be found liable even though he's a government official with qualified immunity. We breached qualified immunity because this was a clearly established law as we found at the Supreme Court in the Kennedy case.

Will Haynes: That's right. So for everyone to get it, the principal here was trying to argue that because I'm a government official, it's essentially you can't do anything about me violating someone's constitutional right even if there's Supreme Court precedent that says that I can't do this. I can still get away with this because I work for a government place, this is a public school, you can't do anything here.

Christy Compagnone: So the district court held for us, which is a really great victory. But then the defendants went ahead and appealed that to the Fifth Circuit. We had to go back into court and fight this time with a oral argument in front of a three panels of judges. We argued again there that no, Kennedy rules here. That principal should have known at the time he was telling her she can't pray that he was violating her rights, clearly established rights that the Supreme Court has upheld only in the past four years.

Will Haynes: So we take this to the Fifth Circuit. This is something that once you even leave district court there's a much broader base of judges. Like you said, three-judge panel. Also more questions arise whether you will succeed on this. This is still, once again folks, we are still in the middle of this case. But yet the principal appealed the lower court decision saying, "Hey, I don't think that the district court got this right." We argue no, the Supreme Court under Kennedy shows that this should be known. And what happens next at the Fifth Circuit as we fight this appeal and what kind of victory and outcome have we gotten now?

Christy Compagnone: It's very exciting because the Fifth Circuit went ahead and held that yes, the principal did violate a clearly established law as found in Kennedy and that if you take our complaint as truth, we will be successful in our lawsuit. So this is really wonderful news for us.

Jordan Sekulow: What's interesting to me Christy is they are using taxpayer dollars to continue to fight this, to continue to appeal. I mean could you see this school district trying to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary? I don't know that the court would hear the case because I think it's pretty settled law. But it seems like they are ready to use the taxpayer's coffers and all the money they pay in to fight because a teacher had the audacity to pray. And even though they've lost all the way up.

Christy Compagnone: I have to tell you Jordan, it really does seem like this is maybe the kind of defense that they're going to play, this long game. We've actually said there's a very real possibility that they will be trying a cert appeal at the Supreme Court. As you said, it obviously is not going to be successful and is just wasting time and dollars. But if they were smart, they would come back to the table now at the district court and maybe admit that there was something wrong here.

Jordan Sekulow: One thing that could be interesting if they did take it to the US Supreme Court is maybe it gives the Supreme Court yet another opportunity to make it clear to all these government agencies including schools that hey look at the Kennedy opinion when you're trying to do this to a teacher just because someone might see them. Again, this wasn't with students, this wasn't trying to be with students, but basically there's nowhere safe on campus for you to pray if possibly a student could see you.

Prayer is not welcome at this school and you would think after getting hit, loss after loss, that they would say, "You know what, we're going to stop using the taxpayer's money, hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more, to fight a teacher who wants to pray privately because someone might drive by and see her praying."

How do they not know she's meditating or taking a moment of silence for herself? The culture is totally acceptable of that. Once they find out though Christy it's a Christian prayer, they're willing to use those taxpayer dollars to fight prayer even in private situations, not trying to engage with students but her own private prayer because it happens to be possible that someone sees that she has her eyes closed. Again, you could be doing that for a lot of different reasons and it doesn't have to be faith-based.

Christy Compagnone: It is absolutely absurd but this is why it's so important that we are fighting on the ground here because this is going to reach out further than just Texas. This is hitting all of the Fifth Circuit and any teacher who wants to be able to pray in the lunchroom, in their own classroom, if another teacher could walk in or a student could walk in and there could be an issue there. This is going to protect you. Our client even went as far as to say, "Well do you want me to move to the parking lot?" And the principal said, "Oh no there's going to be more students walking back and forth from the cars. You can't even move to the parking lot."

Jordan Sekulow: That's the absurdity I want people to understand here. This school district is still continuing to fight that there's nowhere to go. You can't go to your car where people do if they want to take a personal phone call, something like that that they need privacy. Can't pray in your car.

I guess you can't then take a moment to meditate either Christy because wouldn't they assume that other students could assume that they are somehow engaged in a religious act? The school doesn't want them to see that because they have this misunderstanding of the law. I mean going and taking a break in your car kind of deep breaths, closing your eyes, breathing, I mean that's something that's encouraged in our whole wellness industries that are popping up everywhere and the self-care industries.

Yet this teacher has nowhere to go and all the other teachers have nowhere to go to take a moment for themselves and breathe and maybe close their eyes in a private setting in their own car behind closed doors because a student might see it as religious.

Christy Compagnone: It is absolutely absurd but this is why it's so important that we are fighting on the ground here because this is going to reach out further than just Texas. This is hitting all of the Fifth Circuit and any teacher who wants to be able to pray in the lunchroom, in their own classroom, if another teacher could walk in or a student could walk in and there could be an issue there. This is going to protect you. So this goes far more reaching than just this one client that we have and it's really important we finish this fight strong.

Will Haynes: And once again, the fight isn't over. This win at the Court of Appeals saying that the lawsuit can go forward means we go back to the district court and we fight this lawsuit and continue to fight not just for justice for this teacher, for her constitutional rights, but as Christy mentioned, for every teacher's constitutional rights.

That is why when you support the ACLJ, it has a lasting impact on the constitutional rights of everyone in this country. And as Jordan said, they may try to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. Good, we'll be there because we're not afraid because we know that we have the Constitution on our side. We know we have the attorneys who can go in there and win these. But we can't do it without you. Donate today at aclj.org.

Narrator: Right now your most sacred rights are under attack. Your right to free speech, your right to worship, your right to educate your children the way you choose. If successful, these attacks will have a destructive impact on the future of our Republic. We're fighting in courtrooms across the country to have a lasting impact.

Every victory makes a major impact and it's only possible because of the support of ACLJ members and champions. This is your opportunity to double your impact to defend freedom for you, your children, and generations to come. Go to aclj.org/impact and have your tax-deductible donation doubled today.