Law Commons^™

Era Project Faq On The District Court's Decision In Virginia V. Ferriero, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

The states that brought the lawsuit do not have standing. This means that the states that brought the lawsuit were not injured by the fact that the Archivist refused to publish the amendment. Their argument is that the Archivist’s refusal to publish the Amendment undermined their sovereign power to ratify a change to the Constitution.

Faq On The Current Status Of The Equal Rights Amendment To The U.S. Constitution, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Several measures have been introduced into the U.S. Congress this session that relate to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). One is a resolution that would lift the deadline for ratification of the ERA that was passed by Congress in 1972, and the other is a new ERA that would begin a new process of amending the Constitution to add explicit protections for sex equality. This FAQ is designed to explain what each of these measures would do and the legal complexities that surround them.

Columbia Law School Era Project Faq On Legal Issues Surrounding Final Ratification Of The Equal Rights Amendment, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York – On March 17, 2021, the House of Representatives has scheduled a vote on House Joint Resolution 17, a measure that would remove any deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and, as a consequence, would make the ERA finalized and valid at the moment when it has been ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. There are many complex legal issues surrounding the finalization of the ERA, and Columbia Law School’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project has prepared a FAQ that explains the history of ERA ratification, what HJR 17 will do, and …

Columbia Law School Era Project Statement On Virginia V. Ferriero, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York – Columbia Law School’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project issued the following comment on the decision issued by federal judge Rudolph Contreras in Virginia v. Ferriero, a lawsuit brought to force the Archivist of the United States to finally publish the Equal Rights Amendment.

Era Joint Resolution On Timeline For Ratification, Ben Cardin, Lisa Murkowski

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.

Columbia Law School Center For Gender And Sexuality Law Launches New Era Project, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York – Columbia Law School Professor Katherine Franke announced the creation of a new project that will bring cutting-edge research, strategy, and legal resources to the fight for gender-based equality. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project will be housed at the Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law (CGSL), which Franke founded in 2004.

Legal Scholars & Theologians Partner On An Ambitious Vision For Religious Liberty, Elizabeth Reiner Platt

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Oct. 6, 2020—To safeguard the right to religious freedom, the next presidential administration must end the hyper-surveillance of Muslims, welcome religious refugees, protect land sacred to Native communities, restore church-state separation, and withdraw policies that favor particular religious beliefs, argues a new report co-authored by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia University (LRRP) and Auburn Seminary.

Professor Katherine Franke Joins Supreme Court Brief Urging Limits To Religious Exemptions In Same-Sex Parenting Case, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York — Yesterday, Professor Katherine Franke (Faculty Director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project and James L. Dohr Professor of Law) and 8 other scholars of law and religion filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The case raises the question of whether a Catholic social service agency that accepts public funding from the City of Philadelphia to provide child welfare services, can use that funding to deny services to same-sex couples seeking to adopt or foster children.

Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments (telephonically) in the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health plans include contraception coverage, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. The case raises the important question of whether religious liberty rights can be used to limit access to health care at a time when the nation – and the world – is experiencing one of the worst global pandemics in human history. For this reason, the issues in this case take on special significance.

Major Federal Court Victory For Religious Liberty Rights Of Immigrants' Rights Activists, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Monday afternoon, February 3, 2020, U.S. District Court judge Rosemary Márquez issued a sweeping opinion in which she granted the religious liberty defenses raised by four activists working with the Southern Arizona group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes. The opinion reversed an earlier ruling in the case by Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco in which he had found the activists guilty of violating federal law for leaving water and food in the desert for migrants in the Cabrieza Prieta National Wildlife Area, a federally controlled refuge in the Southern Arizona desert where human remains of migrants are frequently found. The …

New Report Surveys Extent Of Religious Liberty Activism On The Left, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, New York — A report released today from the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School offers a sweeping account of religious liberty activism undertaken by social justice and humanitarian movements while demonstrating how right-wing activists have fought for conservative Christian hegemony rather than religious liberty for all. It thus challenges the leading popular narrative of religious freedom.

Legal Scholars File Brief In Case In Which The Department Of Justice Rejects Religious Liberty Rights Of Non-Profit That Provides Safe Space To Injection Drug Users, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Nationally recognized law professors with expertise in religious liberty law filed an amicus brief in a case in which the U.S. Justice Department is seeking to shut down safe-injection sites. The case focuses on the work of a Philadelphia-based nonprofit, Safehouse, a faith-based non-profit that provides people who inject drugs with sterile equipment to minimize the spread of blood-borne illnesses, and to support harm reduction for persons who use injectable drugs.

Columbia Law Scholars Respond To New Hhs Rule, "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights In Health Care", Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

During his National Day of Prayer remarks, President Trump announced a finalized rule that creates expansive legal protections for healthcare providers with specific religious beliefs, including opposition to abortion, sterilization, end-of-life care, and healthcare for LGBTQ persons. The final rule does not offer similarly broad protections to healthcare providers who feel religiously obligated to provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare to their patients.

Law Professors File Amicus Brief On Religious Liberty Rights In Appeal From Criminal Conviction Of Az Immigrants Rights Activists, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Nationally recognized law professors with expertise in religious liberty law filed an amicus brief in the appeal of the convictions of four sanctuary activists who were found guilty in January of the crime of leaving water and food in the desert for migrants. The activists were volunteers with the group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes, and have petitioned a federal court in Arizona to reverse their conviction after a three-day trial.

Professor Katherine Franke Joins An Amicus Brief In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And New Jersey V. Trump, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Monday, March 25th, Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, joined an amicus brief in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New Jersey v. Trump,* a challenge to two rules that exempt employers with religious or moral objections from compliance with the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act.

New Year, New Name: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Is Now The Law, Rights, And Religion Project, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

After nearly five years of fighting for religious equality and civil rights, the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) is proud to announce our new name.

Columbia Law Professor Comments On Federal Court Conviction Of Four Migrants' Rights Activists For Leaving Water And Food In The Arizona Desert, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Friday afternoon, January 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bernardo Velasco found four activists with the group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes guilty of violating federal law for leaving water and food in the desert for migrants in the Cabrieza Pietra National Wildlife Area, a federally controlled refuge in the Southern Arizona desert where human remains of migrants are frequently found. The case signals the Trump administration’s resolve to prosecute migrants’ rights activists as aggressively as possible, even in relatively minor cases such as this one where the activists were charged with what amounts to “littering.”

Religion, Discrimination, And Government Funding: Enforcing Civil Rights Law After Masterpiece Cakeshop And Trinity Lutheran, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

A memorandum published by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School (formerly the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project) that clarifies the responsibility of state and local human rights agencies and commissions to robustly enforce civil rights laws — particularly in the context of government-funded social services — in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer

Professor Katherine Franke Files Amicus Briefs On Religious Liberty Claims Raised In Federal Prosecutions Of Activists In Arizona Who Left Water And Food In Desert For Migrants, Elizabeth Boylan

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On November 13, 2018, Katherine Franke, Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Columbia University, submitted amicus briefs on behalf of seven scholars of religious liberty law in two cases in which the federal government is prosecuting members of the Tucson-based group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes.

Professors Of Law And Religion File Brief Supporting Arizona Immigration Rights Activist's Use Of Rfra As A Defense To Federal Criminal Prosecution, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

June 21, 2018: Today, five prominent professors of law and religion filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Scott Warren, a humanitarian aid worker who faces up to twenty years in prison for providing food and shelter to migrants crossing the Arizona desert. The amicus was filed in an Arizona federal court, and contends that Dr. Warren is entitled to an accommodation from being criminally prosecuted for acting on his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Devalued, Turned Away, And Refused Health Care: What Happens To Women Of Color When Religion Dictates Patient Care, Elizabeth Boylan

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School's Law, Rights, and Religion Project, and the National Women’s Law Center hosted a Capitol Hill Briefing at 10:15 am on Thursday, May 24th to discuss the impact of religious health care refusals on women of color. The event, entitled Devalued, Turned Away, and Refused Health Care: What Happens to Women of Color When Religion Dictates Patient Care, was presented in cooperation with Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman.

New Report Details Consequences Of Trump Administration’S Overly Broad Guidance On Religious Liberty, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Center For American Progress

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

April 3, 2018, Washington, D.C. – Obama-era rules prohibiting discrimination in dozens of federal programs could be undermined by the Trump administration’s controversial guidance on religious liberty, according to a new report from the Center for American Progress and Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project.

Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

In medical facilities across the country, doctors whose conscience would require them to perform a sterilization on a patient who requests one, offer truthful information about accessing abortion services, or provide comprehensive LGBTQ+ health care are forbidden from doing so by their employer. The conscience of such medical providers is entirely ignored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recently proposed rule that purports to “ensure that persons or entities” providing health care “are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” As explained in a comment submitted today by the Columbia …

“First Amendment Defense Act” (Fada) Is Reintroduced In The Senate, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, March 8, 2018–The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project is dismayed that the deceptively named “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) was reintroduced into the U.S. Senate today by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Not only is this bill unnecessary to the protection of religious liberty in the United States, its language would be harmful to the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

Dignity Denied: Religious Exemptions And Lgbt Elder Services, Movement Advancement Project (Map), Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Sage - Advocacy Services For Lgbt Elders

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

LGBT older adults, like many older Americans in the United States, rely on a network of service providers as they age–for community programming and congregate meals, for health care, and for housing ranging from independent living to skilled nursing. Research finds that a majority of these services are offered by religiously affiliated organizations.

While many of these religiously affiliated facilities provide quality care for millions of older adults, there is a coordinated effort to pass religious exemption laws, issue executive orders and agency guidance, and to litigate court cases to allow individuals, businesses, and even government contractors and grantees to …

Dignity Denied: Religious Exemptions And Lgbt Elder Services, Elizabeth Boylan

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

LGBT older adults, like many older Americans in the United States, rely on a network of service providers as they age–for community programming and congregate meals, for health care, and for housing ranging from independent living to skilled nursing. Research finds that a majority of these services are offered by religiously affiliated organizations.

The report was launched with a panel discussion program hosted at Columbia University's Union Theological Seminary on Friday, December 15th, 2017, detailing the increased risks LGBT older adults face as a result of recent religious exemption laws and policies.

Columbia Law School Think Tank Files Amicus Brief In Scotus Case, Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project and Muslim Advocates filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of a coalition of 15 diverse civil rights and faith organizations. At issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop is whether the owners of a Colorado public establishment may, due to their own private religious beliefs, refuse service to individuals because of their sexual orientation.

Columbia Law Experts Denounce Federal Guidance Allowing Religious And Moral Discrimination In Contraceptive Coverage, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) condemns the Trump administration for issuing sweeping new rules today that roll back the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s birth control benefit, by broadening exemptions for employers who claim religious or moral objections to offering birth control to their workers. These regulations place the religious and moral views of employers above the health and wellbeing of their workers and gut the contraceptive coverage provision of the ACA by dramatically reducing access to affordable birth control. Rather than protecting religious freedom for all Americans, these regulations are part of the current administration’s ongoing effort …

Columbia Law Experts Denounce Doj Religious Liberty Guidance As Attack On Religious Liberty And Fundamental Equality Rights, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) denounces the memorandum released today by the Department of Justice (DOJ) entitled the “Federal Memorandum for Religious Liberty Protections.” This document, and its implementation guidance misinterpret the meaning and scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), demonstrating this administration’s continued commitment to elevating a particular set of religious beliefs over the safety and equality rights of women, LGBTQ people, people of color, and religious minorities.

Joint Statement By The Council On American-Islamic Relations Of New York & Columbia Law School’S Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Council On American-Islamic Relations Of New York, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

As advocates for free exercise of religion, civil rights, and religious pluralism, we are deeply concerned that President Trump’s recently signed Executive Order “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” will serve to limit, not protect, religious freedom. The order was signed on May 4, 2017, in a ceremony that included Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman and statements by Pentecostal televangelist Paula White, Baptist Pastor Jack Graham, Catholic Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Rabbi Marvin Heir, and Vice President Mike Pence. While the executive order — unlike a prior leaked draft — does not single out particular religious beliefs for special protection, we …