Writing at The Daily Wire, Viewpoint Diversity Score chief Jeremy Tedesco called attention to a recent bit on Saturday Night Live, where the weekly show inadvertently raised the profile of one of the more pressing threats on free speech and religious liberty Americans face.

“Saturday Night Live made headlines this weekend for all the wrong reasons,” wrote Tedesco, who serves as Senior Counsel and Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom. “During Weekend Update, a cast member suggested that Donald Trump stumbled and introduced a ‘new term’ to the debate called ‘de-banking.’ What followed was a rather feeble attempt at mocking the former president.”

Far from a verbal miscue on the campaign trail, Tedesco pointed out, de-banking and financial censorship have already earned the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is set to hear arguments in National Rifle Association v. Vullo on March 18.

After providing a short explainer on the case, Tedesco goes on to highlight the larger trend of de-banking before suggesting that individual states may have an important role to play in protecting the God-given freedoms of every American.

This state legislative season presents an opportunity for states interested in protecting against politicized de-banking to act. Any such law should focus on the worst actors – the largest banks and payment processors. Thanks to wide-reaching government benefits, such as greater lending power, FDIC insurance rates, subsidies, bailouts, and an anticompetitive chartering system, these institutions dominate their markets over state-level competitors yet are responsible for the worst de-banking incidents.

At a minimum, the law should prohibit denial of services based on religious or political beliefs, give customers the right to ask for a detailed explanation when services are denied, empower the attorney general to enforce the statute, and provide aggrieved customers a private right of action.

No one should have to worry that they could lose their bank account, insurance coverage, or other essential financial services because of their religious or political views. Yet it’s clear that vague financial service policies abused by private and government actors pose a serious threat to everyone’s freedom of speech and religion.

Read Tedesco’s article in full here.