About Jay Sekulow
Jay Sekulow is widely regarded as one of the foremost free speech and religious liberties litigators in the United States, having argued 12 times before the U.S. Supreme Court in some of the most groundbreaking First Amendment cases of the past quarter century. As Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), he is a renowned constitutional attorney, an international expert on religious liberty, and an acclaimed and distinguished broadcaster. Jay Sekulow is a passionate advocate for protecting religious and constitutional freedoms with an impressive track record of success. His steadfast determination and commitment to protecting these freedoms is expansive with his work resulting in a lasting impact across America and around the world.
Jay Sekulow’s unique litigation strategies have revolutionized religious liberties litigation. His extensive body of work includes securing the right of religious organizations to have equal access to public facilities, protecting the free speech rights of young people to participate in the political process, and affirming the free speech rights of pro-life advocates to communicate their lifesaving message free from criminal prosecution. His acumen extends beyond the courtroom as he is a widely listened to broadcaster, is regularly sought after for his experience in constitutional law, and has been asked to testify before Congress on the constitutionality of proposed legislation.
Jay Sekulow’s Education & Early Legal Career
After graduating cum laude from Mercer University with a bachelor’s degree, Jay Sekulow went on to earn a doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer Law School, graduating in the top 5% of his class. While a student at Mercer, he served as an editorial staff member of the Mercer Law Review. Jay Sekulow later earned a Ph.D. from Regent University, authoring his dissertation on American Legal History.
After graduating from law school, Jay Sekulow began his prestigious legal career as a trial tax attorney for the Office of the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In that position, he represented the United States Department of Treasury in tax cases before the United States Tax Court. Following his time with the IRS, Jay Sekulow entered private practice, establishing one of the fastest-growing law firms in Atlanta, Georgia.
He became General Legal Counsel for Jews for Jesus in 1986 before forming Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (C.A.S.E.). Jay Sekulow joined the ACLJ in 1990, where he still serves as Chief Counsel.
His commitment to educating the next generation of constitutional advocates remains unwavering to this day. Jay Sekulow has served on the faculty for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice where he trained Assistant United States Attorneys and other federal, state, and local litigators in First Amendment issues associated with the prosecution of obscenity. Jay Sekulow currently serves on the faculty of Regent University School of Law as a Distinguished Professor of Law, teaching courses in Supreme Court history and constitutional law. Through the ACLJ, Jay Sekulow enables Regent Law students to learn firsthand from practicing constitutional scholars and to participate in landmark federal court litigation and in state courts around the nation. Jay Sekulow has also helped establish legal education programs where students get to experience firsthand the ever-developing area of international human rights and religious liberties litigation while being taught by some of the foremost experts in the field in Strasbourg, France; Israel; and at the Handong University in South Korea.
Jay Sekulow’s Supreme Court Cases
Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987)
Jay Sekulow presented the first of his 12 arguments before the Supreme Court at the age of 30, arguing the cause before the High Court. At the time, he was a member of the Board of Directors for Jews for Jesus and served as its General Counsel.
The Board of Airport Commissioners adopted an ordinance which prohibited all “First Amendment activities.” Members of Jews for Jesus, a Messianic Jewish organization which routinely evangelized in public places, were arrested under this ordinance for passing out tracts at the Los Angeles International Airport. Jay Sekulow represented the organization’s members. Jay Sekulow made what, at the time, was a unique argument in religious liberties litigation. Instead of merely arguing that this ordinance violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Jay Sekulow argued that the ordinance in fact violated the Jews for Jesus members’ free speech rights. He argued that religious speech deserved no less protection than political or other forms of speech. The opening line of his first oral argument cut directly to the core of the case, resonating with all nine Justices: “Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, local governments have important responsibilities concerning their efficient operation of airports under their control; however, the record in this case is clear – there is no justification for a sweeping ban on First Amendment activities which would subordinate cherished First Amendment freedoms.”
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the argument, holding that the ordinance was so overreaching and violative of the First Amendment that “no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.” Jay Sekulow’s unique argument in Jews for Jesus has become a fixture of religious liberty and free speech litigation, establishing the legal principle that religious speech accords the same protection as other forms of protected speech. This reliance on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment has become a mainstay of Jay Sekulow’s long career of successful cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990)
Jay Sekulow represented Bridget Mergens and a group of students who were denied the right to form a Christian Bible club at Westside High School, a public school. He argued that the Equal Access Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibited a school from denying a group of students equal access to meet as a recognized club on public school campuses solely because of the religious content of their speech. Jay Sekulow successfully argued that official school recognition of student religious clubs was not an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause; and in fact, by denying the group official recognition and privileges as a club, it violated the students’ free speech rights.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Jay Sekulow’s argument on behalf of the student group. The Supreme Court in Mergens upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act, which required any school receiving federal funds that permitted any “non-curriculum student groups” to grant “equal access” to all student groups regardless of the “religious, political, philosophical, or other content” of their speech. The Court also agreed with Jay Sekulow’s argument that “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”
In the end, the case turned on whether the school permitted other “non-curriculum student groups,” as the Equal Access Act only applied when the school had chosen to recognize other of these non-curriculum groups. The Supreme Court held that “the term ‘non-curriculum related student group’ is best interpreted broadly to mean any student group that does not directly relate to the body of courses offered by the school.”
Jay Sekulow’s argument in Mergens became a turning point in religious liberties litigation. Because the Supreme Court agreed with him – that students should receive the same free speech rights, including religious speech, as other citizens – every federally funded secondary school in the nation that permits non-curricular clubs such as 4-H, Chess Club, and other service-type clubs to meet and hold events on campus, must also permit student-initiated and student-run Bible clubs and prayer groups to meet to the same extent.
United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990)
Jay Sekulow represented Marsha Kokinda and Kevin Pearl, two political volunteers, who were arrested for soliciting contributions and selling literature in front of a U.S. Post Office. He argued that the First Amendment protected the rights of these individuals to solicit funds because they were on a public sidewalk, which he argued was a public forum. While a deeply divided Supreme Court disagreed that this particular sidewalk, which was the only way for postal employees to enter or exit the post office, was a public forum, the Court agreed with Jay Sekulow that speech in a public forum is examined under strict scrutiny.
The four-member plurality held: “Regulation of speech activity on governmental property that has been traditionally open to the public for expressive activity, such as public streets and parks, is examined under strict scrutiny. … But regulation of speech activity where the Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment activity is examined only for reasonableness.” The Court held that the government’s interest in promoting the free flow of traffic in front of this Post Office was reasonable and upheld the convictions.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Jay Sekulow served as co-counsel representing school officials who wished to invite clergy to deliver invocations at school ceremonies. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the school in that case violated the Establishment Clause.
Lee v. Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 830 (1992)
Jay Sekulow served as co-counsel representing a religious group that wished to distribute religious literature at airport terminals. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had previously prohibited the distribution of any printed materials at airports. Relying on Jay Sekulow’s landmark First Amendment win in the similar Jews for Jesus case, the legal team argued that the restriction violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with their argument, holding that the total ban on literature distribution was an unconstitutional violation of free speech.
He also served as co-counsel in a related case, Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992), regarding solicitation of funds at airport terminals. In that case, the Court found that, unlike distribution, the ban on solicitation (the requesting of funds) was a reasonable regulation of speech at airport terminals.
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)
Jay Sekulow represented Jayne Bray and several other pro-life advocates who were arrested for demonstrating in front of abortion clinics in Washington, D.C. They were charged with violating the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which outlawed class-based discrimination. The abortion clinics argued that the pro-life advocates had conspired to deny women their “right to an abortion.” Jay Sekulow argued before the Supreme Court that women seeking an abortion were not a “class of persons” being discriminated against, under the language of the act, and that the act did not apply to the pro-life advocates.
After presenting oral arguments on behalf of the pro-life advocates, the Supreme Court requested that the litigants re-argue the case before them. The Supreme Court granted unlimited certiorari, asking the parties to answer additional questions. Having lost in the lower courts, Jay Sekulow chose a litigation strategy to make it a very narrow case, arguing that this case was not a federal matter and did not belong in federal court under federal laws that were inapplicable to these individuals.
In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Sekulow’s argument, holding that the 120-year-old anti-discrimination law did not apply to pro-life advocates. The Court held that for this law to apply, there must be a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators’ action.” The majority held that opposition to abortion is not discrimination against women, finding that there was absolutely no evidence that the pro-life advocates discriminated against women as a class of people, but that they “share[d] a deep commitment to the goals of stopping the practice of abortion and reversing its legalization.”
In addressing the abortion clinic’s argument that the protesters somehow violated women’s “right to abortion,” the Supreme Court further agreed with Sekulow’s argument, holding that because they were private individuals seeking to discourage abortions and not the government forbidding the practice, pro-life advocates could never violate that “right.” Jay Sekulow’s argument in Bray continues to stand as a significant legal victory for the pro-life movement and for the free speech rights of all Americans.
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993)
Jay Sekulow represented Lamb’s Chapel, a church group that was denied the use of a local school building after hours to show a religious film, before the Supreme Court. He argued that banning all religious organizations from utilizing public facilities that were open for use by other organizations on the grounds that their purpose for using the school facility was “church-related” was an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed with Jay Sekulow’s argument, holding that it was unconstitutional for the school district to prohibit the use of school facilities after hours based on the content of their proposed speech. The Court held that the restriction was neither reasonable nor “viewpoint neutral.” The Supreme Court also agreed with Mr. Sekulow that allowing churches to use public facilities did not violate the Establishment Clause, as the school did not in any way sponsor the meetings.
The impact of the Lamb’s Chapel case is significant. Every government agency that has access policies in place for its properties must now allow groups engaged in religious speech to utilize those facilities as well. Today, thousands of churches are permitted to conduct meetings and hold services in schools and other public facilities as a direct result of the precedent-setting victory in the Lamb’s Chapel case.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
Jay Sekulow represented Paul Schenck and other pro-life advocates who were prohibited from coming within 15 feet of people seeking to enter an abortion clinic by court-imposed “floating buffer zones.” Mr. Sekulow recast the legal argument not as an abortion protest case, but as a free speech literature distribution case, arguing that the court’s injunction creating these “floating buffer zones” was a violation of the pro-life advocates’ free speech rights.
While the Supreme Court held that creating a fixed buffer zone around the abortion clinic itself was constitutional, it agreed with Jay Sekulow’s argument that the “floating buffer zones” were an unconstitutional violation of the pro-life advocates’ free speech rights. In its 6-3 decision, the High Court concluded that the 15-foot restriction on speech imposed by the “floating buffer zones” exceeded the government’s legitimate interest in public safety and free flow of traffic and, instead, created confusion and congestion. In the end, the Court concluded, as Jay Sekulow argued, that the “floating buffer zones” created by the injunction were overly broad and unconstitutional.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
Jay Sekulow defended the right of public school students to publicly pray at school sporting events. The public school district had expressly authorized student-led prayer at sporting events by a student chaplain who was elected by the student body. He argued that student prayer is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibited school officials from affirmatively facilitating school prayer; however, the Court agreed with Sekulow’s argument that students have a constitutional First Amendment right to pray. The Court held that “nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day.”
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000)
Jay Sekulow continued defending the rights of pro-life advocates before the Supreme Court, this time against a Colorado law prohibiting anyone within 100 feet of an abortion clinic from approaching that person to distribute “a leaflet or handbill to, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education, or counseling with [that] person,” without first gaining that person’s consent. Jay Sekulow argued that this restriction was an unconstitutional violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the law was “not a regulation of speech. Rather, it is a regulation of the places where some speech may occur.” The Court concluded: “Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas.” However, the Court did not overrule its decision in Schenck, argued and won by Jay Sekulow nearly five years earlier, that 15-foot “floating buffer zones” preventing speech near people approaching an abortion clinic was unconstitutional.
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, No. 01-1119 consolidated with Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003)
Jay Sekulow served as Counsel of Record for Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization, in challenging the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute to pro-life advocates. The National Organization for Women argued that Operation Rescue and others had engaged in “a pattern of racketeering activity” in a conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics. Jay Sekulow argued that the federal racketeering law could not be used to convict pro-life advocates for their nonviolent protests.
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in this consolidated case, agreed with Sekulow’s argument that there was no evidence that the pro-life advocates were engaged in extortion, holding that RICO could not be used against them. This unequivocal Supreme Court decision removed a cloud that had been hanging over the pro-life movement for 15 years, allowing pro-life organizations to operate free of the fear of criminal penalty.
McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)
Jay Sekulow represented a group of minors whose right to make political contributions was denied under the Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which prohibited individuals 17 years old or younger from contributing to political campaigns. He argued that it was a violation of a minor’s constitutional right to free speech to be prohibited from voicing their support for a candidate or political party by making a contribution to a political campaign.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with this argument, unequivocally holding that “minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.” The Court also held: “Limitations on the amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate or political committee impinge on the protected freedoms of expression and association.” The High Court examined the restrictions under strict scrutiny, finding the goal of preventing fraud “too attenuated” from a total ban on political contributions by minors. The Supreme Court struck that provision of the act as unconstitutional.
Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004)
Jay Sekulow represented Joshua Davey, a college student majoring in pastoral ministries who was denied the Washington State Promise Scholarship because of the religious nature of his chosen field of study. Jay Sekulow argued that denying this student a scholarship because of the religious nature of his chosen major while providing the scholarship to students pursuing secular majors was an unconstitutional violation of his free speech and free exercises rights.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the state law prohibiting scholarship funds from being used for religious instruction was constitutional. However, at Jay Sekulow’s urging, the Supreme Court did not prohibit states from restructuring scholarship programs to permit the pursuit of a degree in devotional theology. Thus, while states can prohibit funding for students studying religion, they are not constitutionally required to do so.
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, No. 04-1352 consolidated with Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006)
After successfully representing Operation Rescue before the Supreme Court in this case three years earlier, Jay Sekulow again represented the pro-life organization in this consolidated case. On remand, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Hobbs Act applied to accused acts of violence-related extortion. Mr. Sekulow once again successfully represented Operation Rescue as Counsel of Record, arguing that any acts of supposed violence were unrelated to the purpose of the federal statutes.
The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the position defended by Mr. Sekulow, holding that “physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act.” This Supreme Court decision brought an end to 20 years of litigation by pro-abortion organizations aimed at silencing the pro-life movement.
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)
Jay Sekulow represented the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, before the Supreme Court when Summum, a religious group, wanted to force the city to accept a monument of Summum’s seven aphorisms to be placed next to a monument of the Ten Commandments that the city had accepted years earlier from another group. Employing an aggressive litigation strategy which was controversial at the time, Jay Sekulow argued that the Ten Commandments monument was government speech; defending the position that when the government is speaking, it gets to determine its own message; and thus, the government could choose to accept the monument that conveyed the message it wished to convey.
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Sekulow’s argument, concluding that the Ten Commandments monument was, in fact, government speech; and as such, it was free to reject other monuments. This landmark ruling was not only a victory for the City of Pleasant Grove, but it also cleared the way for governments across the country to accept permanent monuments of their choosing in public parks, including the Ten Commandments.
Jay Sekulow’s Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Briefs
Jay Sekulow has also submitted numerous amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court in some of the most groundbreaking litigation of the past quarter century. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) briefs, continue to represent hundreds of Members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of Americans. The amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court include a defense of students’ rights to participate in religious clubs on public school campuses, support of the Department of Justice in national security cases, and the protection of constitutional liberties in many other cases. Through these amicus briefs, Jay Sekulow has played a significant role in successfully defending the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto, the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, the right to keep and bear arms, pro-life legislation including the federal ban on partial birth abortion, and illegal immigration laws.
Members of the Supreme Court cited the amicus briefs that Mr. Sekulow and the ACLJ submitted in the High Court’s final decisions. For example, an amicus curiae brief was cited approvingly by Chief Justice John Roberts in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 470 (2007), defending the right of a pro-life organization to air commercials related to abortion within 60 days preceding a federal election. In that case, the Court agreed with the argument made by Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ. Mr. Sekulow has been involved in countless other Supreme Court-related cases and is widely consulted for his experience in Supreme Court litigation.
Jay Sekulow’s International Human Rights & National Security Law Practice
Jay Sekulow is widely respected for his advocacy of human rights and religious liberties on the international stage. In 1997, he founded the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), an international affiliate of the ACLJ, in Strasbourg, France. Jay Sekulow founded the ECLJ to further the legal and legislative defense of religious freedoms and human rights in Europe and around the world, and it has quickly become another leading advocate for religious freedom. As Chief Counsel of the ECLJ, Jay Sekulow helped that international non-governmental organization obtain Special Consultative Status with the United Nations (U.N.) in 2007. He has led the ECLJ in litigation before the European Court of Human Rights and works with the U.N. and European Union legislative bodies. The ECLJ also maintains offices in Pakistan and Jerusalem, Israel.
The Jerusalem, Israel, office is a part of a burgeoning national security law practice. Believing that what happens in the Middle East ultimately affects America’s national security, Jay Sekulow has assembled a highly skilled national security legal team in the U.S. and in Israel, including former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Following Israel’s attempts to defend itself when fighting broke out in Gaza, Jay Sekulow appeared before the Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court at the Hague, debunking erroneous allegations made in the Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes that it did not commit. The Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel and former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon, thanked him for his advocacy on behalf of Israel, stating, “Jay Sekulow is a true friend of Israel who has fought with us hand-in-hand in some of Israel’s most strategic, international battles.”
In 1998, Mr. Sekulow helped establish the Slavic Centre of Law and Justice (SCLJ) as an affiliated organization with the ACLJ and ECLJ in Moscow, Russia. The SCLJ is a well-respected defender of religious rights and freedoms in the former Soviet region.
In 2010, Jay Sekulow established the East African Centre for Law and Justice in Kenya and the African Centre for Law and Justice in Zimbabwe. Both of these organizations were launched to facilitate, protect, and defend human rights and religious freedoms throughout Africa.
In 2011, Jay Sekulow established an ACLJ office in South Korea in conjunction with Handong Global University.
Jay Sekulow’s Broadcasting & Media Appearances
In addition to being a litigator on multiple continents, Jay Sekulow is also a renowned broadcaster. He is the host of Jay Sekulow Live!, a daily radio program that engages millions of people listening via 850 radio stations, as well as XM and SIRIUS satellite radio and is live-streamed on ACLJ.org each weekday at noon (EST). He is also the host of ACLJ This Week, a weekly television program seen on Sky Angel, Daystar, Trinity Broadcasting Network, and many other networks nationwide.
Mr. Sekulow is a widely sought after television commentator, who appears frequently on FOX News, the 700 Club, and many other news networks for his unique perspective on the critical legal and legislative issues of the day. He is a regular guest on Sean Hannity’s radio show and his FOX News television network. Jay Sekulow is an opinion editorial contributor to several publications, including the USAToday, New York Daily News, The Washington Times, and Townhall.com. He regularly blogs at Beliefnet.com.
Jay Sekulow’s Awards & Recognitions
Jay Sekulow has also received numerous awards and recognitions for his remarkable legal work:
- TIME Magazine called him one of the “25 Most Influential Evangelicals” in America, calling the ACLJ “a powerful counterweight” to the ACLU.
- The National Law Journal twice included him in its list of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers” in the United States.
- The American Lawyer included him in its list entitled “The Public Sector 45,” which included “45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.”
- The Legal Times named him to its list of “The 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years” for his dedication to “fighting to expand liberties and protect civil rights.”
- Townhall Magazine includes him in its “Townhall of Fame” as “one of the top lawyers for religious freedom in the United States.”
- The Chicago Tribune stated that the ACLJ, under the direction of Jay Sekulow, has “led the way” in Christian legal advocacy.
- Business Week magazine called the ACLJ, under the direction of Jay Sekulow, “the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.”
Jay Sekulow’s Publications
Mr. Sekulow has published many scholarly law review articles including:
- Jay Sekulow, Transcript: The Misuse of Federal Racketeering Law to Censor Free Speech, 21 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 855 (1995).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Walter M. Weber, NOW v. Scheidler: An Inside Look, 21 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 959 (1995).
- Jay Alan Sekulow et al., Proposed Guidelines for Student Religious Speech and Observance in Public Schools, 46 Mercer L. Rev. 1017 (1995).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Jeremy Tedesco, The Story Behind Vidal v. Girard’s Executors: Joseph Story, the Philadelphia Bible Riots, and Religious Liberty, 32 Pepp. L. Rev. 605 (2005).
- Jay A. Sekulow & Francis J. Manion, The Supreme Court and the Ten Commandments: Compounding the Establishment Clause Confusion, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 33 (2005).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Erik Michael Zimmerman, Posting the Ten Commandments Is a “Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion”?: How McCreary County v. ACLU Illustrates the Need to Reexamine the Lemon Test and Its Purpose Prong, 23 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 25 (2006).
- Panel Discussion, Restricting Parental Speech, 6 Geo. L. & Pub. Pol’y 487 (2008).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Erik M. Zimmerman, Weeding Them Out by the Roots: The Unconstitutionality of Regulating Grassroots Issue Advocacy, 19 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 164 (2008).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Erik M. Zimmerman, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum: Upholding the Government’s Authority to Craft Its Own Message Through Privately Donated or Funded Monuments, Memorials, and Artwork, 3 Charleston L. Rev. 175 (2009).
- Jay Alan Sekulow & Erik M. Zimmerman, Tinker at Forty: Defending the Right of High School Students to Wear “Controversial” Religious and Pro-Life Clothing, 58 Am. U. L. Rev. 1243 (2009).
- Dr. Jay A. Sekulow and Benjamin P. Sisney, Constitutionally Protected Parental Rights in Child-Custody Arrangements and the Impact of Religion on Children, 1 Regent J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 169 (2009).Jay Sekulow is also the author of several books:
- Jay Sekulow, And Nothing But the Truth: Real-Life Stories of Americans Defending Their Faith and Protecting Their Families (1996).
- Jay Alan Sekulow, The Christian, the Court and the Constitution: Your Rights as a Christian Citizen (2000).
- Jay Sekulow, Witnessing Their Faith: Religious Influence on Supreme Court Justices and Their Opinions (2007).