Law Commons^™

Why Some Religious Accommodations For Mandatory Vaccinations Violate The Establishment Clause, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

All states require parents to inoculate their children against deadly diseases prior to enrolling them in public schools, but the vast majority of states also allow parents to opt out on religious grounds. This religious accommodation imposes potentially grave costs on the children of non-vaccinating parents and on those who cannot be immunized. The Establishment Clause prohibits religious accommodations that impose such costs on third parties in some cases, but not in all. This presents a difficult line-drawing problem. The Supreme Court has offered little guidance, and scholars are divided.

This Article addresses the problem of religious accommodations that impose …

The Contraception Mandate Accomodated: Why The Rfra Claim In Zubik V. Burwell Fails, Caroline Mala Corbin

Short Works

No abstract provided.

Deference To Claims Of Substantial Religious Burden, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Catholic Charities Of The Diocese Of Albany V. Serio, Sarah Marx

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Rfra Exemptions From The Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation Of Religion", Frederick Mark Gedicks, Rebecca G. Van Tassell

Frederick Mark Gedicks

Litigation surrounding use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to exempt employers from the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” is moving steadily towards eventual resolution in the U.S. Supreme Court. Both opponents and supporters of the mandate, however, have overlooked Establishment Clause limits on such exemptions. The fiery religious-liberty rhetoric surrounding the mandate has obscured that RFRA is a “permissive” rather than “mandatory” accommodation of religion—that is, a voluntary government concession to religious belief and practice that is not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Permissive accommodations must satisfy Establishment Clause constraints, notably the requirement that the accommodation not impose …

The Contraception Mandate, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Under the new health care regime, health insurance plans must cover contraception. While religious employers are exempt from this requirement, religiously affiliated employers are not. Several have sued, claiming that the "contraception mandate" violates the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Essay explains why the contraception mandate violates none of them.

Debate: The Contraception Mandate And Religious Freedom, Steven D. Smith, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Whose Body? Whose Soul? Medical Decision-Making On Behalf Of Children And The Free Exercise Clause Before And After Employment Division V. Smith, B. Jessie Hill

Faculty Publications

Within constitutional law, children’s rights have suffered from severe neglect. The issue of parents’ constitutional rights to deny children medical treatment based on religious belief is one area in desperate need of attention. Although the Supreme Court’s 199 decision in Employment Division v. Smith seemingly set forth a relatively clear rule regarding the availability of exemptions from generally applicable laws - such as those requiring parents to ensure that their children receive appropriate medical care - Smith has changed little in this realm, and if anything, it has only confused matters, highlighting the intractable nature of the issue. While Smith …

Could Government Speech Endorsing A Higher Law Resolve The Establishment Clause Crisis., Bruce Ledewitz

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Establishment Clause crisis exists due to the Supreme Court’s promise that America would have a secular government—meaning one which was neutral between religion and irreligion, as well as being neutral to all religions. This promise evolved pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, the commitment to neutrality was never carried to fulfillment by the Court. The crisis may be illustrated by Congress’ addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. This addition seemed to violate the promise of neutrality made by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education …

Reading, Writing, And Radicalism: The Limits On Government Control Over Private Schooling In An Age Of Terrorism., Avigael N. Cymrot

St. Mary's Law Journal

There are constitutional limitations that govern attempts to regulate the teaching of terrorism-encouraging ideologies. According to a 1999-2000 study by the National Center of Education Statistics, there are 152 full-time Islamic schools in the United States, schooling about 19,000 students. The primary concern is not that children will be instructed to immediately engage in terrorist acts, but that the teaching of a radical Islamist ideology will predispose them to join radical Islamist terrorist movements and engage in violence. The Free Exercise Clause and parental rights doctrine, however, might not by themselves bar the state from interfering in private education to …

Religion In Public Schools: Let Us Pray - Or Not., Carolyn Hanahan, David M. Feldman

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Essay addresses judicial interpretation and application of the religious protections of students in public schools. Part II addresses the evolution of the law governing prayer in public schools, including the creation of judicial tests utilized in determining whether a school district has impeded the rights of students in the area of religion. Part III examines the application of these tests to various activities, including a discussion of the disparity in judicial interpretation with respect to the permissibility of prayer at public school functions. This Essay concludes with a discussion analyzing the effect of the recent United States Supreme Court …

A Holy Mess: School Prayer, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of Texas, And The First Amendment., David S. Stolle

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held the traditional compelling state interest standard for Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence should be replaced by a new test requiring a statute or government action to be facially neutral and generally applicable. In response to Smith, Congress, relying on its Enforcement Clause powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, attempted to resurrect the compelling state interest standard by passing the Religious Freedom of Restoration Act (RFRA). In June 1999, the Texas legislature passed the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). This Comment argues the TRFRA is unnecessary …

God Is Dead: Killed By Fifty Years Of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence., Raul M. Rodriguez

St. Mary's Law Journal

In 1980, the Supreme Court in Stone v. Graham addressed the issue of whether a statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Applying the Lemon test the Court found the statute’s purpose to be religious and ruled it unconstitutional. Yet, had the state required the placement of the following “secular commandments” in every classroom, it is unlikely the Court would have found an Establishment Clause violation. Stone illustrates what the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become. The Court has misconstrued the meaning of the “establishment of religion” …