Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Thomas Jefferson And The Establishment Clause, Mark J. Chadsey
Thomas Jefferson And The Establishment Clause, Mark J. Chadsey
Akron Law Review
The purpose of this paper is to ask whether the historical record actually supports either of these assumptions. A note about my mode of analysis is necessary at this juncture. When inquiring about Jefferson’s influence on the Establishment Clause, it is important to focus on the entire process by which it was adopted rather than its mere introduction by Madison in the House of Representatives. Its adoption, after all, required the assent of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, three-fourths of the state legislatures, and the support of a majority of the American public. Without the requisite support of all …
Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund
Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund
Pepperdine Law Review
The “religious question” doctrine is a well-known and commonly accepted notion about the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. The general idea is that, in our system of separated church and state, courts do not decide religious questions. And from this premise, many things flow — including the idea that courts must dismiss otherwise justiciable controversies when they would require courts to resolve religious questions. Yet a vexing thought arises. The religious-question doctrine traditionally comes out of a notion that secular courts cannot resolve metaphysical or theological issues. But when one looks at the cases that courts have been dismissing pursuant to …
Free Exercise Reconceived: The Logic And Limits Of Hosanna-Tabor, Christopher C. Lund
Free Exercise Reconceived: The Logic And Limits Of Hosanna-Tabor, Christopher C. Lund
Northwestern University Law Review
Two terms ago, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment precludes ministers from bringing employment-related claims against their churches. In some ways, Hosanna-Tabor changed little. The lower courts had all reached that conclusion already, though the Supreme Court slightly expanded the breadth of the so-called ministerial exception. More important is how Hosanna-Tabor reconceptualized things, especially in how it pushed back somewhat against the Supreme Court’s imperial decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court had broadly held that the Free Exercise Clause did not entitle religious believers to exemptions …