Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Board Meeting Prayer Bound For Supreme Court In Church-State Case, Richard Garnett
Board Meeting Prayer Bound For Supreme Court In Church-State Case, Richard Garnett
Richard W Garnett
ABC News quoted Rick Garnett in the article by Ariane de Vogue. Richard Garnett, an expert on church-state issues at the Notre Dame Law School says, “At the heart of this new case is whether the court should stick with a relatively bright-line rule that treats legislative prayers as presumptively permissible, given their long use in our country, or whether the court should move to more of an all-things-considered inquiry that treats such prayers like Christmas displays and the like.”
The Davis Good Faith Rule And Getting Answers To The Questions Jones Left Open, Susan Freiwald
The Davis Good Faith Rule And Getting Answers To The Questions Jones Left Open, Susan Freiwald
Susan Freiwald
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones clearly established that use of GPS tracking surveillance constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. But the Court left many other questions unanswered about the nature and scope of the constitutional privacy right in location data. A review of lower court decisions in the wake of Jones reveals that, rather than begin to answer the questions that Jones left open, courts are largely avoiding substantive Fourth Amendment analysis of location data privacy. Instead, they are finding that officers who engaged in GPS tracking and related surveillance operated in good faith, based …
Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand
Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand
Michael A Helfand
This article considers how parties should resolve disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice – that is, how people should litigate religion. Under current constitutional doctrine, litigating religion is generally the task of two types of religious institutions: first, religious arbitration tribunals, whose decisions are protected by arbitration doctrine, and religious courts, whose decision are protected by the religion clauses. Such institutions have been thrust into playing this role largely because the religion clauses are currently understood to prohibit courts from resolving religious questions – that is, the “religious question” doctrine is currently understood to prohibit courts from litigating …