Why we publish this
Religious liberty in the United States is not the property of one faith. It is claimed by Catholics and Muslims, Sikhs and Santeríans, Orthodox Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical Protestants and Native American practitioners, atheists and the unaffiliated. The doctrine that protects one protects all of them, and the cases that build it come from every corner of American religious life.
A publication covering this beat that hears from only a few of those voices is not merely narrow. It is inaccurate. It will miss the cases that matter, misjudge which arguments have traction, and mistake the concerns of one community for the state of the law.
This policy is therefore first about the completeness of our journalism, and second about how we staff it.
Breadth of coverage
Across traditions. We report religious liberty disputes involving minority and unfamiliar faiths with the same seriousness and the same word count as those involving large or influential ones. A prisoner’s grooming claim, a zoning fight over a small congregation’s building, a sabbath accommodation case brought by a worker with no legal organization behind her — these are the cases where the doctrine is actually built, and they receive our attention regardless of how many readers share the claimant’s beliefs.
Including claims we expect our readers to dislike. We cover religious liberty claims brought by traditions our audience may regard as strange, wrong, or objectionable. If we only defend the free exercise of the familiar, we are not covering free exercise.
Including nonbelief. Establishment Clause claims brought by atheists, agnostics, humanists, and the unaffiliated are part of this beat and are reported as such.
Within traditions. Religious communities are not monoliths and do not speak with one voice. Where a question is contested inside a tradition, we say so and represent more than one position, rather than treating any single organization or figure as speaking for an entire faith.
Across legal perspectives. We seek out scholars, litigators, and analysts across the range of serious constitutional thought — accommodationist and separationist, originalist and otherwise — including those who would decide the cases we cover differently than our readers might prefer. We quote critics of positions we report sympathetically.
Across geography. Religious liberty law is made in state courts, state legislatures, county zoning boards, and prison administrative systems, not only at One First Street. We deliberately cover disputes outside Washington, including in rural and small communities, and outside the federal appellate spotlight.
Sources
Who we quote determines what our readers learn.
- We build and maintain a contact list that extends beyond the small number of repeat commentators who appear in every story on this beat, and we add to it deliberately rather than reaching for the same names under deadline.
- We seek comment from the people actually affected — plaintiffs, congregants, employees, inmates, students, families — and not only from the organizations litigating on their behalf.
- We work to include experts from a range of institutions, including practitioners, state-level advocates, and academics outside the most-quoted faculties.
- Where we cannot obtain a perspective a story requires, we say so in the piece rather than proceeding as if it does not exist.
Staffing and contributors
This is a small operation with no paid editors or staff. We recruit openly. Positions and contributor opportunities are posted publicly rather than filled solely through personal networks, which tend to reproduce whoever is already here.
We hire and commission on the basis of ability, judgment, and integrity, and we work to ensure the pool we choose from is wide — across religious background, race, ethnicity, sex, age, disability, geography, socioeconomic background, and professional path, including people who entered journalism from law, ministry, or public service rather than through conventional media routes.
We do not discriminate in employment or commissioning on any basis prohibited by law, and we comply with all applicable employment law.
Accessibility
Reaching a wide audience is part of this commitment.
- Images carry descriptive alternative text.
- Video carries accurate captions; where resources permit, transcripts are provided.
- We write legal analysis in plain language, define terms of art on first use, and do not assume legal training.
- Our site is built and tested for keyboard navigation, sufficient color contrast, and screen reader compatibility.
- Primary documents are linked in accessible formats wherever the source permits.
What this policy is not
This is not a quota. We do not assign or decline coverage on the basis of a claimant’s identity, and we do not select sources to fill categories. Every story is reported and every hire is made on the merits.
What we commit to is the work that comes before those decisions: casting widely, checking our own habits, and noticing whose voices are missing before a piece publishes rather than after
Tell us what we are missing
If there is a case, a community, or a perspective we are not covering, tell us. This is the most useful correspondence we receive.