It’s really no longer a question of “will” ObamaCare get to the U.S. Supreme Court. Friday’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit makes it all but a certainty.

In a discussion about the most recent appeals court decision by the 11th Circuit declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, I told Pat Robertson today on The 700 Club that this legal road challenging ObamaCare will end at the Supreme Court. With the 11th Circuit decision, there is now a conflict in the Circuits, with the 6th Circuit declaring the individual mandate constitutional just six weeks ago. And, a decision by the 4th Circuit could come at any time.

With conflicting decisions at the appeals court level, it’s clear this issue will be decided by the Justices. I believe this issue is on the fast track, likely to be before the high court next term with a decision in advance of the 2012 elections.

How the legal arguments and appeals shape up is still to be determined. But the language expressed by the majority in the 11th Circuit decision should become a template for future arguments.

“This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives,” the appeals court determined.

Yes, the appeals court only declared a portion of the health care law unconstitutional -  the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance.

But the decision on why the mandate, the cornerstone of ObamaCare, is unconstitutional is very much the same argument that should be made to strike the entire law. ObamaCare clearly represents an “unbounded assertion of congressional authority.” If Congress can tell Americans what to do about health care, it can tell Americans what to do about anything.

The individual mandate is a big part of the problem. But the fact is the entire law must go. In our view, the two can’t be separated – one can’t exist without the other.

As you may know, we represented 74 members of Congress and more than 70,000 Americans in the 11th Circuit case, filing an amicus brief backing Florida’s challenge. And our preparations continue for oral arguments scheduled for September 23rd in our own legal challenge of ObamaCare. We will present our case before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

As I have said before, all legal roads regarding ObamaCare end up at the Supreme Court. And it looks like a precedent-setting, blockbuster decision will come just in time for the run-up to the November 2012 elections.

I want to share with you a victory we have achieved in our efforts to protect the rights of those who wanted to show a powerful documentary marking the anniversary of 9/11 in several parks in New York City.

You may recall the post a couple of weeks in which I announced that the ACLJ was representing the Christian Action Network (CAN) in this case. CAN had been denied permission to utilize a number of City parks, which are available and routinely used by other organizations, to show a documentary entitled: “Sacrificed Survivors: The Untold Story of the Ground Zero Mega-Mosque,” which addresses the controversy surrounding the mosque at Ground Zero from the perspective of individuals who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Communications between the Parks Department and CAN’s representatives revealed that the Department’s concern over the documentary’s content and viewpoint was the issue.

We got involved. We sent the City a demand letter outlining our position and the constitutional issues involved.

“The law is clear: the City has violated the Christian Action Network’s rights under the First Amendment,” the demand letter stated. “The City’s refusal to approve CAN’s applications due to disagreement with the content and viewpoint of the documentary violates CAN’s First Amendment rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from ‘abridging the freedom of speech.’”

I am extremely pleased to report that the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation has agreed to CAN’s request to show the film in several City parks.

Our legal team did a fantastic job on this case and the outcome clearly reflects an important victory for our clients and for the First Amendment. We’re also pleased that the corrective action was taken in a timely manner so that our clients can show this film in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary commemorating the tragic events of 9-11, as they had planned.

CAN expressed its gratitude for our involvement in the case. “We’d like to thank everyone who supported us, and thank the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) that issued a ‘demand letter’ on our behalf.” CAN acknowledged the ACLJ’s assistance and noted that “the Department responded positively and gave us a list of seven parks and eight available dates.”

While this 9-11 issue resulted in a victory, we’re still focused on defending the placement of the World Trade Center Cross at a new museum at Ground Zero – a move that has been challenged by a lawsuit filed by an atheist group.

We have now surpassed our online goal of 72,000 Americans who signed on to the Committee to Protect the Ground Zero Cross. In fact, we’re now closing in on 100,000 signatures – a remarkable outpouring of support in just a few weeks. Thanks to those who already have signed on. There is still time to add your name to our Committee. If you haven’t done so yet, please take a moment and add your name here.

We’re putting the finishing touches on our amicus brief to be filed in support of this historical Cross at Ground Zero. I will keep you posted on when that brief is filed.

It is a critical step forward to undoing ObamaCare.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the individual mandate, the provision forcing Americans to purchase health insurance, unconstitutional.  In split decision, posted here, the court found that “the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power.”

“What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,” the opinion said.

The 2-1 ruling marks the first time a judge appointed by a Democrat has voted to strike down the mandate. Judge Frank Hull, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, joined Chief Judge Joel Dubina, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, to strike down the mandate. Judge Stanley Marcus, in a dissenting opinion, said the mandate is constitutional. He was also appointed by Clinton.

The court concluded: “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

We agree. This is the argument we made in our amicus brief that we filed in this case on behalf of 74 members of Congress and more than 70,000 Americans. Our amicus brief is posted here.

While the appeals court did not declare the entire law unconstitutional, by striking the individual mandate, the entire law is clearly in jeopardy. The individual mandate is such a core provision of ObamaCare, that without it, it’s very difficult to see how this law can be salvaged.

As you know, we’re directly involved in challenging ObamaCare as well. We’re preparing for oral arguments to be presented to a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. September 23rd urging the court to reinstate our lawsuit challenging the individual mandate. In our latest court filing, posted here, we contend that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause, an argument “grounded in the Constitution.”

As I told you a couple of days ago, ObamaCare is the wrong prescription for America. There’s still a lot of active litigation to play out. Keep in mind that all legal roads lead to the Supreme Court. But this decision gives us even more hope that this troubling health care law ultimately will be put to rest.

Christians are in the crosshairs around the globe – facing more danger than ever before because of their faith.

That has been apparent to us for years as the ACLJ, along with our international affiliate organizations, work to protect the rights of Christians around the globe.

Now, comes a new study from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life that illustrates just how serious this problem really is. The report, “Rising Restrictions on Religion,” found restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose between mid-2006 and mid-2009 in 23 of the world’s 198 countries. But consider this: those 23 countries – where the violations climbed dramatically – represent nearly one-third of the world’s population. That’s more than 2.2 billion people affected. The worst offenders, according to the report: China, Egypt, France, Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Vietnam and the United Kingdom.

And the faith group most targeted: Christians. No surprise there.

The report, which is posted here, found that Christians were being harassed in more countries than any other faith group. Government or social harassment was reported against Christians in 130 countries.

We also know that anti-blasphemy laws, on the books in many Muslim nations, are used as weapons against Christians – to punish them because of their beliefs. The report takes special note of these troubling laws: “In addition, the study finds that restrictions on religion are particularly common in countries that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion. While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical.”

This report clearly confirms what we find every day in our work. We’ve just completed a fact-finding mission to Nigeria, where Christians have been under attack. That post is here.

And, as you may recall, we’ve been working to save the life of a Christian Pastor in Iran who was convicted of converting from Islam to Christianity and sentenced to death for his faith. As we have reported here, we have been pressuring members of Congress and the U.S. State Department to get involved. We’re even backing specific legislation in Congress that keeps pressure on nations to protect religious liberty.

At the same time, we’re seeing some encouraging signs in the move to protect religious expression and freedom. Not long ago, we were successful in getting the United Nations Human Rights Committee to adopt several recommendations by our European affiliate, the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ). The ECLJ recommended, and the Human Rights Committee accepted, that no right exists to protect the reputation of an ideology – rather human rights belong to individuals. The Committee also adopted the ECLJ’s recommendation to prohibit countries from relying on religious law to restrict religious expression.

This new report by the Pew Forum should serve as a wake-up call to the world – especially to those countries where religious harassment and persecution is worsening. It’s no longer as easy for offending nations to suppress or hide these actions of hostility. With the internet and a growing social media, the word gets out – very quickly. And, now, there are more organizations like ours and others that are dedicated to protecting the universal rights of religious freedom and expression for Christians around the globe.