Since this is a case under the Alien Torts Statute then I highly doubt the First Amendment applies/is relevant.
Here’s something I picked up on ATS Wikipedia:
“...This statute is notable for having allowed U.S. courts to hear human-rights cases brought by foreign citizens for conduct committed outside the United States. However the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to corporate defendants nor conduct which occurred outside of the United States, in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.”
It’s hard to believe this will go much further, since Lively was in Uganda. I wonder if his ministry is incorporated.
Agreed. The Fed judge is just disregarding the new SCOTUS decision, but it really does cut the legs out from under SMUG’s jurisdictional argument. What the Ugandan parliament decides to do legislatively after taking testimony from a US evangelist is between Ugandan leadership and their people, at least as far as our judiciary is concerned. Especially when Lively argued for greater leniency than what that parliament finally came up with.