In two cases this term, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there’s little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework. For nearly 75 years, the court has recognized that both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses are vital to protecting religious freedom: The Establishment Clause protects against governmental endorsement and imposition of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause ensures the right to practice your faith without harming others. No more. The court has increasingly treated the Establishment Clause as a historical footnote, threatening both the independence of religion and the religious neutrality of the state.

In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine’s tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections. In fact, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, explicitly warned against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has previously respected states’ ability to restrict taxpayer support for religious educational activities. Indeed, for decades, the court rejected efforts to direct government funds to religious uses. In Carson, however, six justices disregarded these longstanding, historical church-state concerns. According to the court, state funding of religious indoctrination is not only permissible, but now required in some circumstances. The Carson majority thus firmly placed the free-exercise rights of the Christian plaintiffs over the Establishment Clause rights of the broader populace.

One week later, it did the same in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public-school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Ignoring well-established precedent that prohibits school officials from participating in prayer with students, the majority embraced what one lower court judge called a “deceitful narrative” spun by Kennedy and his lawyers. The court characterized the coach’s prayers as “quiet” and “personal,” but they were nothing of the sort; Coach Kennedy delivered his prayers audibly, at the 50-yard line, immediately after games, often surrounded by students.

The court said that Kennedy had abandoned any intent to pray with students, but in fact he repeatedly demanded that he be able to continue praying with his students, declaring that he was “helping these kids be better people.” The court also claimed that no students were coerced into prayer, but the record shows that at least some players joined Kennedy in prayer solely to avoid separating themselves from their team. And in any event, that misses the broader point: As the court had recognized for over a half-century, merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

Taken together, the court’s rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead “us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized in her Carson dissent. These rulings suggest that enforcement of the Establishment Clause is somehow hostile to religion. But the opposite is true: Many people of faith, including Christians and adherents of minority faiths, strongly support the separation of church and state as a core component of religious liberty. They recognize, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other of our nation’s founders, that religious freedom thrives best when government officials don’t tip the scales toward their favored religious beliefs.

Nevertheless, in recent years, the court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether. The court has permitted official, nearly exclusively Christian prayer at government meetings and has allowed the government to display giant religious symbols, like a 40-foot Latin cross. The Supreme Court has also sided with those who, in the name of religion, discriminate against customers, employees, and recipients of government-funded social services. With this month’s decisions, the court has now required that government funds be diverted from a secular education program to support religious education and indoctrination and has allowed school officials to impose religion on public-school students. The ruling in Kennedy is particularly disturbing because, until now, the court has repeatedly recognized that students are impressionable, much more vulnerable to religious coercion, and, thus, deserving of the highest levels of constitutional protection. Instead, the court subverted students’ religious liberty to the religious demands of school staff.

The Carson decision could also open the door to broader government funding of religious activities more generally, and Kennedy will likely embolden government employees in other contexts to claim a similar right to promote religion while on duty, even if it infringes on the religious freedom of others. This attack on the Establishment Clause is as unwise as it is infuriating. As Justice O’Connor shrewdly observed 17 years ago, “[a]t a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government … [o]ur regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish.”

She warned that “[t]hose who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” It’s a question this Supreme Court majority has not deigned to answer, perhaps because there’s no good reason to abandon the separation of church and state, and every reason to ensure that it remains strong.

When it comes to reproductive rights, your digital trail matters more than you think. 

For decades, law enforcement has weaponized fear and technology to track, arrest, surveil, and harass people of color and other marginalized communities. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, it’s critical that we stop geofence and keyword warrants, along with other kinds of tracking. 

Intrusions of digital privacy will have dire implications for millions of Americans. Indiana lawmakers are signaling their plans to ban abortion during the special session beginning July 25. Laws that criminalize abortion could be used to surveil, penalize, and control Hoosiers, but disproportionately, Black and Brown Hoosiers. It’s chilling to think that seeking medical care may lead to being monitored by the police and government.

Apps you use every day collect and sell sensitive data to marketers. Currently, law enforcement and intelligence agencies are allowed to buy Americans’ personal information from apps and sell it to data brokers without any oversight. Corporations collect our information to sell to the highest bidder while an expanding surveillance apparatus and outdated privacy laws allow the government to monitor us like never before.

Despite a few media reports, most Americans are unaware that our government can obtain personal information — such as where we live, what doctor’s office we visited, or even when our last period was. Location data from phone apps is ripe for abuse. With Roe v. Wade overturned, this practice puts people’s lives at risk.  

There are steps you can take to protect yourself. Some require additional work to keep your information safe. They are worth it, especially if you’re in a state that may ban abortion.    

Use a more privacy-protective search engine, such as DuckDuckGo or Tor. 
Websites like Google can use your location and search history to track you. You can turn off Google location and search history in your Google account settings.

Keep location services turned off on your phone. 
Unless you need it for navigation apps, adjust your settings so you are not being tracked. For Apple devices, go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services. To change settings on Android devices, go to Settings > Location and select “off”. 

Turn off biometric authentication on your phone. 
This includes features like Touch or Face ID that scan your fingerprint or face to unlock your phone. Using a passcode is much safer.

Chat about plans on encrypted apps with disappearing texts, like Signal.
You should also limit who you talk to about getting an abortion. Some people have been reported to the police by friends, family or medical professionals for seeking an abortion.

Do not rely on health apps, like fertility trackers, to monitor your menstrual cycle. 
These apps can sell your data to marketers to target you. Think about using a paper calendar or password protected spreadsheet to track your menstrual cycle. 

This threat isn’t hypothetical, it’s already happening. Data brokers have already tracked people to and from abortion clinics, and sold their information to anyone with a credit card. No one should live in fear of constant surveillance when making decisions about their health.

Our right to privacy goes hand-in-hand with our right to abortion – and we won’t stop fighting for either.