Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Religion Law

Journal

2015

Free Exercise

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Kirsch V. Wisconsin Department Of Corrections: Will The Supreme Court Say "Hands Off" Again?, Owen J. Rarric Jul 2015

Kirsch V. Wisconsin Department Of Corrections: Will The Supreme Court Say "Hands Off" Again?, Owen J. Rarric

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the struggle of prison inmates to gain access to religious materials; materials that have been forbidden by prison officials. Part II of the Note will examine the historical development of inmates’ constitutional rights. It will also analyze the Supreme Court’s standard for reviewing prison regulations involving inmates’ constitutional rights. Moreover, the Note discusses Congress’ attempt to set the standard of review. The Note then examines the significance of the Kirsch decision. Finally, the Note analyzes the fourth factor of the Turner Standard used in Kirsch and explores the possible effect of a new legislative act on prisoners’ …


Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund Feb 2015

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 …


A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby Feb 2015

A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby

Pepperdine Law Review

Earlier this term, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, the first of a litany of cases in which for-profit business entities are invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") in support of their claim that the Affordable Care Act’s HHS Mandate violates their freedom of religion. In particular, these plaintiffs argue that the Mandate’s requirement that employer-provided health insurance covers the costs of contraceptives, the "morning after" pill, and other fertility-related drugs conflicts with their deeply-held religious belief that life begins at conception and is, therefore, unconstitutional. …