Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Indiana Law Journal
Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Pepperdine Law Review
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …
Antidiscrimination And Tax Exemption, Alex Zhang
Antidiscrimination And Tax Exemption, Alex Zhang
Faculty Articles
The Supreme Court held, in Bob Jones University v. United States, that violations of fundamental public policy— including race discrimination in education—disqualify an entity for tax exemption. The holding of the case was broad, and its results cohered with the ideals of progressive society: the government ought not to subsidize discrimination, particularly of marginalized groups. But almost four decades later, the decision has never realized its antidiscriminatory potential. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has limited implementation to the narrowest facts of the case. The scholarly literature has not formulated a systematic account of how to enforce the Bob Jones …