Constitutional law scholar Stephen M. Feldman argues that the Roberts Court has changed the meaning of religious freedom and who fully belongs under the Constitution. Drawing from his book Who Belongs: White Christian Nationalism and the Roberts Court, Feldman traces the fight over “We the People” from the founding and Reconstruction through the New Deal, the Warren Court, and today's conservative Supreme Court. He explains how the constitutional shift beginning around 1937 helped expand protections for voting, free speech, and equal participation.

We also examine originalism and its reliance on historical interpretations developed when many Americans were excluded from political participation. Feldman compares Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, involving a public school football coach's prayer, with Mahmoud v. Taylor, involving religious objections to LGBTQ+ inclusive classroom books. The discussion explores whether religious freedom is being applied consistently, how the Court's approach intersects with white Christian nationalism, and what these decisions mean for church-state separation and American democracy.

Book

Book: Who Belongs: White Christian Nationalism and the Roberts Court

Author: Stephen M. Feldman

Bookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9781479841165

Guest Bio

Stephen M. Feldman is a retired distinguished professor of law and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Wyoming, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence for more than two decades. His scholarship examines constitutional interpretation, democracy, religious liberty, and the relationship between law and politics. He is the author of Who Belongs: White Christian Nationalism and the Roberts Court and Pack the Court! A Defense of Supreme Court Expansion. Feldman retired in summer 2026 after four decades of teaching constitutional law.

University profile: https://www.uwyo.edu/law/directory/step-feldman.html

Law professor and former prosecutor Corinna Lain returns to Faithful Politics to examine two disturbing developments in America's death penalty system: the botched lethal injection of Christa Pike in Tennessee and the Trump administration's proposal to publicly livestream the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan.

Drawing on her book Secrets of the Killing State, Lain explains why lethal injections fail, how execution protocols leave room for serious mistakes, and why the Supreme Court has allowed states to attempt executions a second time. We also discuss firing squads, the constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and the political appeal of public executions.

The conversation turns to a larger question about justice, redemption, and whether the death penalty serves any meaningful purpose. Lain also explains why, despite renewed political attention, capital punishment has been declining in the United States.

Book: Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9781479832965

Author's book page: https://corinnalain.com/books/secrets-of-the-killing-state/

Bio:

Corinna Barrett Lain is the George E. Allen Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, where she specializes in constitutional law, criminal procedure, and capital punishment. A former prosecutor and U.S. Army veteran, she is the author of Secrets of the Killing State: The Untold Story of Lethal Injection. Her research examines botched executions, government secrecy, and the constitutional limits of capital punishment. She has spent years investigating how executions are conducted and why lethal injection frequently fails to work as intended.

Pew Research Center's Greg Smith joins Faithful Politics to explain why Christians who share similar religious beliefs often vote for opposing political parties. With the 2026 midterms approaching, we examine the differences between white evangelicals, Black Protestants, Catholics, and religiously unaffiliated voters, and what those differences could mean for the election.

Smith also explains why many evangelicals support Donald Trump despite questioning his personal religious commitment, why the economy matters more to religious voters than abortion or LGBTQ issues, and what Americans think about churches endorsing political candidates. We also discuss a surprising finding: most Christians believe people can disagree about Trump and still be good Christians.

Guest Bio: Gregory A. Smith is Senior Associate Director of Research at Pew Research Center, where he studies religion in American life and its relationship to politics. He has helped lead Pew's major Religious Landscape Studies and has conducted extensive research on religious identity, political affiliation, and public opinion. His work provides insight into how Americans' religious beliefs and practices intersect with voting behavior, political priorities, and changing demographic trends.

These Pew Research Center resources directly support the topics discussed in the interview.

• Religious Groups Differ Widely in Their 2026 Midterm Preferences - Gregory A. Smith's October 13 research, including the 73% Republican preference among white evangelicals and 74% Democratic preference among Black Protestants.
• How Americans Feel About Religion's Influence in Government and Public Life - Research on religion in politics, Christian nationalism, and church involvement in elections.
• Most Americans Think Churches Should Not Endorse Political Candidates - Historical polling showing 79% opposition to church endorsements in 2026.