Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Atonement of Jesus Christ? 9

                                                                       Article of Faith 3

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved,

by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This is the ninth and last essay about the Atonement of Jesus Christ as stated in the third Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first week, I discussed the importance of understanding how the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the third pillar of eternity, is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan for the eternal happiness of His children. The second week, the discussion was about the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the nature of the atonement. The third week, the discussion concerned the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a vicarious sacrifice. The fourth week, the discussion was about Christ’s sacrifice being voluntary and love inspired. The fifth week, the discussion was about the Atonement being foreordained and foretold. The discussion for the sixth week was about extent of the Atonement of Christ. For the seventh week, the essay was about the general effect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Last week the discussion was about the individual effect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This week’s discussion will use the words of Elder James E. Talmage to discuss salvation and Exaltation (Articles of Faith [1913], 91-93).

Salvation and Exaltation – Some degree of salvation will come to all who have not forfeited their right to it; exaltation is given to those only who by righteous effort have won a claim to God’s merciful liberality by which it is bestowed. Of the saved, not all will be exalted to the higher glories; rewards will not be bestowed in violation of justice [emphasis added]; punishments will not be meted out to the ignoring of mercy. No one can be admitted to any order of glory, in short, no soul can be saved until justice has been satisfied for violated law. Our belief in the universal application of the atonement implies no supposition that all mankind will be saved with like endowments of glory and power. In the kingdom of God there are numerous degrees or gradations provided for those who are worthy of them; in the house of our Father there are many mansions, into which only those who are prepared are admitted. The false assumption, based upon sectarian dogma, that in the hereafter there shall be but two places, states, or conditions for the souls of mankind – heaven and hell, with the same glory in all parts of the one and the same terrors throughout the other – is untenable in the light of divine revelation. Through the direct word of the Lord we learn of varied kingdoms or glories.

Degrees of Glory – The revelations of God have defined the following principal kingdoms or degrees of glory, as prepared through Christ for the children of men.

1. The Celestial Glory [Doctrine and Covenants 76:50-70, 92-96] – There are some who have striven to obey all the divine commandments, who have accepted the testimony of Christ, obeyed “the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,” and received the Holy Spirit; these are they who have overcome evil by godly works and who are therefore entitled to the highest glory; these belong to the Church of the Firstborn, unto whom the Father has given all things; they are made kings and priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek; they possess celestial bodies, “whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical”; they are admitted to the glorified company, crowned with exaltation in the celestial kingdom

2. The Terrestrial Glory [Doctrine and Covenants 76:71-80, 87, 91, 97] – We read of others who receive glory of a secondary order, differing from the highest as “the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.” These are they who, though honorable, failed to comply with the requirements for exaltation, were blinded by the craftiness of men and unable to receive and obey the higher laws of God. They proved “not valiant in the testimony of Jesus,” and therefore are not entitled to the fulness of glory.

            3. The Telestial Glory [Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-86, 88-90, 98-106, 109-112] – There is                 another grade, differing from the higher orders as the stars differ from the brighter orbs of the                 firmament; this is for those who received not the testimony of Christ, but who, nevertheless, did              not deny the Holy Spirit; who have led lives exempting them from the heaviest punishment, yet             whose redemption will be delayed until the last resurrection. In the telestial world there are                    innumerable degrees comparable to the varying light of the stars [See Doctrine and Covenants                76:81-86, 98]. Yet all who receive of any one of these orders of glory are at last saved, and upon             them Satan will finally have no claim [emphasis added]. Even the telestial glory “surpasses all                understanding; And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it” [Doctrine and                Covenants 76:89, 90). Then there are those who have lost all claim upon the immediate mercy of             God, whose deeds have numbered them with Perdition and his angels. 

Should American Christians Take the Lead in American Politics?

Pastor Dervin L. Gray thinks Christians in America should remember that Jesus Christ is the King that we should follow because no political party or any politician can claim the throne of God. Gray states, “The most revolutionary political announcement in history was not made in Washington, Rome, or any earthly capital. He continued: 

It came when the earliest Christians proclaimed: Jesus is Lord (Acts 2:36). In the Roman Empire, this confession was revolutionary. Caesar Augustus was celebrated as a divinely favored ruler who brought peace and salvation. An ancient inscription even described his birth as the beginning of “good news” (euangelion) for the world.

Rome had its good news, savior, and emperor. Then came the followers of a crucified and risen Jewish Messiah, announcing that Jesus was the world’s true Savior, rightful Lord, and everlasting King.

Paul declared that every knee would bow and every tongue acknowledge that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10-11).

Something greater than politics

The earliest Christians were not trying to seize Caesar’s throne. They were announcing that Caesar’s throne was never ultimate.

What they were saying isn’t that the gospel was less than political. It was more than political. As a pastor and theologian, I believe Christians should care deeply about political issues because they affect our neighbors, especially the vulnerable.

But the church does not exist to advance MAGA, Republicans, Democrats, or any political party. The church exists to proclaim King Jesus, make disciples, love our neighbors, and embody God’s justice and mercy.

When political loyalty becomes our primary identity, we diminish the gospel. Instead of being the truth-telling conscience of political parties, we become puppets of political parties.

Likewise, when we demonize opponents, excuse cruelty, or place our ultimate hope in elections, we compromise our witness.

While political parties may pursue aspects of justice, they cannot establish God’s kingdom. No political ideology can contain the glory, holiness, justice, mercy, and love of Jesus Christ. Our allegiance belongs to King Jesus. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is not.

Wisdom from 1984 that the world still needs

A 1984 Assemblies of Goe voter guide recently resurfaced online, reminding Christians that the challenges of political discipleship are not new. Historian Daniel Isgrigg shared 10 principles from that guide for Christian participation in elections, and their wisdom remains striking.

1.     Do not confuse patriotism, national pride, or Western culture with Christianity.

2.     Do not confuse political campaigning with the church’s mission of preaching and witnessing.

3.     Verify information before sharing or repeating it.

4.     Refuse to spread slander, rumors, and personal attacks.

5.     Take time to understand the issues rather than relying on slogans.

6.     Evaluate candidates with honesty and integrity.

7.     Do not vote for someone simply because that person claims to be a Christian.

8.     Do not neglect your family, worship, prayer, or scripture because of political activity.

9.     Do not treat fellow Christians as adversaries because they hold different political views.

10.  Keep your ultimate allegiance centered on Jesus Christ rather than on any candidate, party or election.

This is not a call to abandon conviction in the political realm. It is a call to let our convictions be shaped by Jesus’ character.

5 ways Christians can practice the politics of King Jesus

As we navigate political disagreements, I encourage Christians to practice five commitments.

First, give Jesus your ultimate allegiance, not a political party.

Second, tell the truth. Refuse to overlook political corruption or spread misinformation, even if this defends or advances a political issue you care about. Simply do not participate in slander and lies.

Third, love your political opponents as neighbors. Jesus commanded us t love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44). You can oppose someone’s ideas while honoring their God-given dignity.

Fourth, defend this same God-given dignity of every person, whether they are American citizens, legal immigrants, or undocumented immigrants. We can uphold the rule of law, secure our borders, and treat every human being with compassion, justice, and dignity. These convictions are not in conflict.

Fifth, make disciples, not political converts. The Great commission is to make disciples of Jesus from all nations, not MAGA, Republicans or Democrats (Matthew 28:18-20). We do this by fulfilling the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40).

The world needs a body of believers that looks like Jesus.

I love my country. I am grateful for the Constitution and the religious freedom it ensures for all American citizens, regardless of their religious practices.

But America is not my savior.

No president is my messiah.

And no political party is my church.

We need Christians who take civic responsibilities seriously without confusing them with eternal identity, and churches that form disciples whose political engagement reflects the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Believers, please don’t forget:

Caesar is not Lord.

The state is not our savior.

Jesus Christ is King.

And his kingdom is greater than them all.

Who Is Sir Patrick Stewart?

My VIP for this week is Sir Patrick Stewart, a remarkable actor who starred in productions such as “Star Trek,” “X-Men,” and others for nearly 40 years. According to Samuel J. Abrams in an article published in the Deseret News, Stewart spoke “openly about his difficult childhood, his father’s violence at home, and the many struggles that shaped him.” Abrams shared the following thoughts about Stewart. 

Stewart’s character showed that he respected knowledge, valued competence and understood that leadership required judgment rather than popularity, and this hit me right at a time when I was figuring out what type of person I was hoping to become. But for me, and I suspect for countless other men of my Gen X generation, Patrick Stewart will always be Captain Jean-Luc Picard from “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

Tributes, stories and memories are already pouring in on social media and, for me, what makes his death particularly difficult is that his character – Picard – gave me something important twice in my life, separated by more than 30 years.

What Patrick Stewart taught a young boy

The first gift came when I was a boy, and it involved his performance in “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” where he served as the show’s protagonist as captain of the USS Enterprise. The show premiered in 1987, when I was very much looking up to older men for examples of how to live life, and Picard was an extraordinary figure to encounter at that age.

Stewart’s character was intelligent, disciplined, thoughtful and principled, and the many episodes – which were drawn from the Western literary canon – illustrated just how much Picard believed in duty, obligation and the responsibilities that came with authority. If one watches even a handful of episodes in the series from any of its many seasons, it’s hard to miss that Picard understood that commanding a starship meant being responsible for hundreds of lives and that his decisions carried enormous consequences….

So, for a young man trying to understand adulthood, that was an incredible set of values and virtues. Patrick Stewart certainly never knew me, but his character helped shape the man I wanted to become.

The original “Star Trek: The Next Generation” series ended in 1994, and I grew older, went to college, became a professor and was blessed to have my own family. Picard remained a figure I admired and inspired a significant amount of my thinking, but the character now belonged largely to an earlier chapter of my life.

Patrick Stewart’s influence carried over into fatherhood

Then, in 2020, my relationship with Picard changed dramatically when Stewart returned to the role in “Star Trek: Picard.” This was a short three-season series, and I was a father at that point, and the timing could hardly have been better. The same actor portraying the same character in name, but now older and changed by life, who once taught me something about duty and leadership when I was young, was suddenly confronting questions about family, regret and love, and Picard taught me more lessons. The final season revealed that Picard had a son, Jack Crusher, whom he had never known.

And I – along with the rest of the world – was experiencing and learning from a very different version of Picard. We were now watching a celebrated character who was appreciably older, more vulnerable and increasingly aware of what he had missed earlier. The world and I had the chance to see a real growth and change in a beloved character who had spent so much of his life keeping people at a distance and was discovering that there were obligations and attachments beyond his role as a captain of a spaceship.

Then came the series finale, which was just devastatingly beautiful and gave so many of us another critical lesson about life. Jack had been assimilated by the Borg, another antagonistic cybernetic race whick once robbed Picard himself of his humanity. Picard enters the Borg ship – known as “the cube” – to rescue his son, but Jack refuses to leave. Jack believes that he belongs there, connected to the collective, and cannot imagine returning to an existence in which he feels alone.

Here, we quickly see that Picard cannot command his son to come home, nor can he reason his way out of the situation or rely on the authority that served him so well aboard the Enterprise. So instead, he tells Jack that he is the part of himself he never knew was missing. When Jack refuses to leave, Picard makes a decision that brings tears to my eyes whenever I watch this scene: He embraces his son and tells him, “Then, if you won’t leave, I’ll stay with you. Till the end. You have changed my life. Forever.”

Picard’s decision and words are the second gift. Here was the man who had taught me about duty, sacrifice and leadership when I was a boy, and now, when I am a father, he is teaching me something about fatherhood. His son needed him, and nothing else mattered, and Picard was willing to die rather than leave his child alone. We saw unconditional love, expressed by a man who had spent much of his life struggling to show it.

I have my own children now, and I regularly pause and like to think about what it means to be a good father. There are obligations to meet, examples to set and countless decisions to make, and I know that some will be wrong even with the best of intentions. But beneath all of that is something far simpler – our children need to know that we will be there for them, whatever happens….

Picard, as played by the brilliant Stewart, helped make me the man and father I am today…. Thank you, Sir Patrick. For both gifts.

Would Teaching Civics Have An influence on Voting Percentages?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns voter turnout. Typically, fewer voters turn out in primary elections. Jaxon Tueller is a graduate student at Utah Valley University in the Master of Arts in Constitutional Government, Civics, and Law program. He discusses voter turnout in Utah during primary elections. 

In Utah’s previous midterm election in 2022, only 46.8% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Less than half of all Utahns accepted their civic responsibility to go out and vote. Utah was roughly the middle of all 50 states when it came to voter turnout.

Do Americans think midterms don’t matter? History has shown how important voting in midterm elections can be….

Are Americans’ decisions not to vote tied to a lack of civic awareness and education? Civics is the study of how government works and the rights, duties and responsibilities of citizens in society. One component of civics in the United States includes moral expectations and legal guidelines that dictate our behaviors. Civics education is particularly important as we approach voting age and begin actively participating in governmental functions.

Could more sufficient civics education help increase voter turnout?

In Utah, most students take a course that includes instruction on government and citizenship. Students are also required to pass a basic civics test. But is that enough?

Low voter turnout is one suggestion that this basic civics education is insufficient. If citizens truly understood how important civic responsibilities were, wouldn’t they turn out in elections throughout the state? Is something missing in civics curriculum for students in Utah? In the United States?

Fortunately, in the 2025 legislative session, Utah’s House of Representatives passed HB381 (Civics Education Amendments), which updates the high school graduation requirements starting with the 2027-2028 school year. The social studies requirements will change from 3.0 to 3.5 credits, with a 1.0 credit requirement dedicated to a government class.

Being governed by the will of the people is a fundamental principle of our democracy; using our right to vote means outcomes reflect the people.

This new class – “American Constitutional Government and Citizenship” – is a step in the right direction for improving civics education. With an extra semester, teachers will now have time to teach both constitutional government and citizenship. Students will learn more about state and local politics and citizens’ opportunities – to vote, serve on juries, participate in caucuses and be civically engaged.

Other states have already passed similar legislation. Starting in the 2026-2027 school year, public high school students in Idaho will be required to take one full year of American government alongside other requirements. Still, fewer than 10 states across the country require at least one year of civics education and the passing of a standard civics test….

Voter turnout matters in every election.

If this new curriculum works as intended, it may help increase voter turnout in all of Utah’s elections, especially the oft-neglected midterm elections. We hope that as the new graduation requirements roll out, recent trends in midterm election turnout improve.

So far this year, the trend is not positive. In the 2026 Utah primary elections, voter turnout varied from county to county, but 20 out of 29 counties had a turnout rate of less than 50%.... Will turnout be any better in midterms? It depends on what we choose to do in the next few days!

[Americans] must take their civic responsibilities seriously. Being governed by the will of the people is a fundamental principle of our democracy; using our right to vote means outcomes reflect the people. We must act; we must participate. Utah’s new “American Constitutional Government and Citizenship” class is a good start to improving and re-energizing our current civics education. As we continue improving our civic education, we also need to encourage our friends, family, and other Americans to get involved civically, especially voting. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, let’s get out, vote, and fulfill our civic responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Boldly Stand Up for What Is Right?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Jeremiah in a lesson titled “I Will turn Their Mourning into Joy” (Jeremiah 31-33; 36-39; Lamentations 1; 3). The following material introduced the lesson. 

When the Lord first called Jeremiah to be a prophet, He told him that his mission would be “to root out, and to pull down” (Jeremiah 1:10) – and in Jerusalem, there was plenty of wickedness to root out and pull down. But this was only part of Jeremiah’s mission – he was also called “to build, and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10). What could be built or planted in the desolate ruins left by the rebellion of the covenant people? Asked another way, when sin or adversity has left our lives in ruins, how can we rebuild and plant again? The answer lies in “the Branch of righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:15), the promised Messiah. He brings “a new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31) – one that requires more than the outward appearance of devotion. His law must be “in [our] inward parts,” written “in [our] hearts.” That’s what it means for the Lord to “be [our] God” and for us to “be [His} people” (Jeremiah 31:33). It’s a lifelong process, and we will still make mistakes and have cause to mourn from time to time. But when we do, the Lord promises, “I will turn their mourning into joy” (Jeremiah 31:13).

The scripture block teaches the following principles: (1) The Lord will bring His covenant people out of captivity (Jeremiah 31; 33), (2) “They shall be my people, and I will be their God” (Jeremiah 31:31-34; 32:37-42), (3) The scriptures have power to turn me away from evil (Jeremiah 36), (4) Be firm in following God’s prophets (Jeremiah 37-39), (5) I can be bold in standing up for what is right (Jeremiah 38:6-13; 39:15-18), and (6) The Lord can relieve the sorrow I experience because of sin (Lamentations 1; 3). This essay will discuss principle #5 about doing what is right.

The king’s officials felt that Jeremiah’s prophecies were making their soldiers less willing to fight, so they threw Jeremiah into a filthy dungeon (see Jeremiah 38:1-4). The rulers cast Jeremiah into a muddy dungeon. Ebed-Melech, an Ethiopian, freed him and put him in the court of the prison. Jeremiah counseled Zedekiah concerning the war. Jerusalem was captured, and the people were taken captive. Jeremiah and Ebed-Melech were preserved.

Most of us face difficulties from time to time. Sometimes, we are in situations where we have to stand alone with severe consequences. In such circumstances, we can remember the example of Ebed-Melech.

The Babylonians captured Jerusalem. The king of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes and slew all the nobles of Judah. Then he blinded Zedkiah, bound him with chains, and carried him to Babylon.

The Chaldeans burned the king’s house and the house of the people and broke down the walls of Jerusalem.

King Nebuchadrezzar instructed the captain of the guard to take Jeremiah, treat him well, and do him no harm. The captain of the guard took Jeremiah out of the court of the prison and told Gedaliah to carry Jeremiah home to dwell among the people. Jeremiah went through difficult times, but he eventually went home. He carried the words of the Lord to Ebed-Melech as follows. (See Jeremiah 39:15-18.)

15 Now the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, while he was shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

16 Go and speak to Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished in that day before thee.

17 But I will deliver thee in that day, saith the Lord: and thou shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom thou art afraid.

18 For I will surely deliver thee, and thou shalt not fall by the sword, but thy life shall be for a prey unto thee: because thou hast put thy trust in me, saith the Lord.

Who Has More Sex?

Strong families start with strong marriages, and strong marriages usually include sex. There is a “correlation between ideology and marital sex habits,” according to Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox in their article published in Deseret News. 

One of the most powerful expressions of human intimacy is sex. Human beings are social animals, after all, and sex is an unparalleled way to express and receive love, to touch and be touched, and to bring new life into the world. No wonder that regular sex is tied to our physical and emotional health and is one of the most powerful predictors of human happiness.

Unfortunately, America is on the downslope of a “sex recession,” with the share of adults reporting weekly sex falling from 55% in 1990 to 37% today. A big reason is the retreat from marriage.

Pop culture says monogamous marriage kills passion….

The data says otherwise. The Dartmouth economist David Blanchflower and his colleague Andrew Oswald found that “married people have more sex than those who are single, divorced, widowed or separated.” The surest path to a good sex life still runs through the altar, not away from it.

But today’s married couples aren’t fully immune to the sex recession, either.

In 2008, 59% of married couples between the ages of 18 and 64 reported having sex at least once a week. That number today is about 49%. But there’s another stereotype-busting twist: That decline has largely missed religious couples.

According to recent research, churchgoing couples in America (and the religiously observant of other faiths) are still having sex about as often as they were in the 1990s, with almost two-thirds of religious husbands and wives getting intimate on a regular basis. It is secular couples who’ve experienced a big drop-off in sex, with less than half of them enjoying this kind of intimacy at least once a week.

Over the past few decades, religious faith has become bound more tightly to conservative political viewpoints and partisan affiliation. That left us wondering: Does the sex divide follow ideological lines as well as religious ones?

Data from the General Social Survey suggest a tentative “yes.” Among married women ages 20 to 55, marital sex has fallen sharply for liberals since the 1990s, but not for conservatives. Among husbands, the pattern runs in the same direction: Conservative men saw only modest declines. But the gap between conservative and liberal husbands isn’t statistically significant.

This pattern also shows up in the 2022 “State of Our Unions Survey” – a sample of about 2,000 married men and women by YouGov. Again, conservative husbands have a slight edge here in marital sex, but it’s not statistically significant. By contrast, when it comes to wives, we see that a majority (55%) of conservative wives have sex weekly or more, compared to only a minority (45%) of liberal wives.

The data suggests that the gap between conservative and liberal wives is largely explained by conservatives being more religious – recall, again, that churchgoing couples have more sex. But perhaps ideology, social lives and the algorithm are also parts of the equation.

Liberals are more exposed to messaging that catastrophizes about men and marriage, and they spend more of their lives online. Data from the Survey Center on American Life shows that Democratic women are about twice as likely to blame men for the “challenges that women face in American society” today – and the tide of anti-male attitudes has surged among women on the left since the rise of social media.

Other surveys indicate that Democrats are less likely to believe that marriage is a vehicle for happiness, important for children and needed to create strong families. Left-leaning Americans may be less likely to invest in their marriages – and, indeed, they are less likely to be happily married.

But the correlation between ideology and marital sex habits may also arrive from an unexpected statistic: the amount of time men and women spend online.

Liberals spend more time on social media than conservatives, so progressive men and women are more likely to encounter the polarizing, controversy stirring content that keeps the platforms churning. The “gender wars,” hot-take battles between far-right misogynists and far-left radical feminists, may keep people scrolling. But they can be poison for real relationships….

Men who have regular sex and are married (aged 20-55) are almost four times more likely to be “very happy” than their peers who are unmarried with little or no access to sex, according to data from the General Social Survey. Married women aged 20-55 who have regular sex are three times as likely to be “very happy” with their lives compared to unmarried women who do not have regular sex.

But false tropes about marriage being a threat to sexual satisfaction aren’t the only things that fester online. Pornography has a demonstrably corrosive effect on sexual intimacy, including within marriages. Couples in which one or both partners regularly view porn report lower marital satisfaction and a higher likelihood of infidelity and divorce. Nevertheless, according to one YouGov survey, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say they view porn regularly, and almost two times as likely to say viewing porn is morally acceptable.

The online gender wars and widespread availability of pornography are content issues. The medium itself – time spent online – is another problem that may skew ideological. Researchers recently found evidence of what they called “lifestyle polarization” among college students along ideological lines. Conservative students were more likely to spend their leisure time with other people – at parties, bars, fraternity activities or church. Liberals were more likely to be at home or using social media during their free time.

This is not to say conservative and religious couples are uniformly happy, or that liberals are all glued to their screens. No marriage is perfect, and plenty of conservative couples struggle. Pornography is a problem for a sizable chunk of husbands, both conservative and liberal. On the flip side, plenty of liberals get married, have children and live happy lives.

But in general, conservatism and religiosity are linked to more real-life socializing – more “touching grass,” as the kids say. So, here’s the hypothesis about the sex divide between liberals and conservatives: Conservative married couples may place a higher premium on intimate time together, and they may be more embedded in social networks, especially religious ones, that sustain their marriages.

After all, religious Americans are more likely to gather with friends and extended family, provide for the poor, and volunteer. Extensive amounts of research have shown religious practice to be linked to better physical, mental and social health.

If there is one clear line in the sand to draw here, it’s that couples who want to enjoy the greatest intimacy in their marriages – regardless of their ideological commitments – ought to beware of spending too much time online and losing touch with what makes us human.

Those who prioritize real relationships with real people in the real world will likely spend more time with the people they love. They’ll probably love them a little better, and they’ll probably love them a little more often – if you catch our drift.

Who Determines National Sovereignty?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns who determines who enter and who stays in the United States. Numerous court cases have challenged the authority of the Executive Branch to deport immigrants who are in the United States illegally. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil reported on a recent court case. 

Almost 90,000 immigrants have tried a legal maneuver to escape detention, but an appeals court ruling just significantly undermined that part of the Left’s anti-deportation strategy.

ProPublica has tracked 89,170 cases in which immigrants filed writs of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of their detention or imprisonment. The scale is extraordinary. Immigrants filed more habeas cases during the first 13 months of President Donald Trump’s second term than during the previous three administrations combined.

The cases aren’t materializing in an institutional vacuum, either. A network of advocacy groups has developed litigation resources, turning habeas corpus into a major front in the fight over Trump’s deportation program.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit on Friday ruled that detention without a hearing does not violate the due process rights of immigrants.

“The ACLU and the Left oppose immigration detention because they know it often results in deportation,” Lora Ries, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told the Daily Signal on Tuesday. “The Left opposes deportation because it erodes their political power.”

The Organizational Push

The ACLU maintains a resource page for attorneys challenging immigration detention, including materials specifically addressing detention without bond hearings pending removal proceedings. The ACLU of Maine stated that it is working on habeas cases and that 70 cases had been filed between January 2025 and June 2026, many of which resulted in release.

Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, argued the 5^th Circuit case. She called the court’s ruling “an affront to the U.S. Constitution” and vowed, “We will continue fighting.”

Ellie Norton, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project, similarly condemned the ruling. She argued that “this ruling opens the door to more people being locked up for no reason, with devastating consequences for them, their loved ones, and their community.”

James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a “big win,” noting that the principle of detention for illegal aliens was “codified in 1996 legislation but ignored by the deep state for decades.”

The 5^th Circuit Ruling

In the case of Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Miguel Vergara, three illegal aliens who were detained by immigration authorities pending removal proceedings filed writs of habeas corpus, and the lower courts ordered them released.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit initially agreed with lower-court judges, yet the full circuit reheard the case and ruled Friday that the illegal aliens were “not entitled to individual hearings” before they could be lawfully detained pending removal.

The illegal aliens had claimed a right to procedural due process, which they argued requires bond hearings on deportation safety and flight risk before they could be detained.

That framing, however, skips over the question the 5^th Circuit considered decisive: What process has Congress actually afforded illegal aliens who were never admitted into the country?

“Because petitioners have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided before they may be detained pending removal,” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote in the 10-7 en banc opinion.

While illegal aliens, like American citizens, enjoy the right to due process, Congress has the authority to determine deportation proceedings and did so in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law stipulated that illegal aliens “shall be detained.”

“An alien who was not admitted into the U.S. but is later encountered in the U.S. interior is still an ‘applicant for admission’ and, per the IIRIRA, shall be detained,” Ries said. “Furthermore, the court affirmed that the immigration law provides no bond hearing process for such aliens.” The ruling does not eliminate habeas corpus challenges to immigration detention altogether. Rather, it forecloses this constitutional claim to an individualized bond hearing for similarly situated aliens within the 5^th Circuit.

Even so, it sets a strong precedent and may open the door to a Supreme Court ruling clarifying the matter.

Wilson’s opinion noted that illegal aliens may escape detention through one simple expedient: agreeing to leave the country.

“In no other context implicating a core liberty interest does the detainee hold the keys to his own confinement,” the judge noted.

Ries argued that this “is the difference between the U.S. deciding who may come here and who must leave, and the rest of the world deciding who gets to stay in the U.S. This ruling upholds our nation’s sovereignty.”