Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Measuring A “Spiritual Stake”: How To Determine Injury-In-Fact In Challenges To Public Displays Of Religion, Ashley C. Robson
Measuring A “Spiritual Stake”: How To Determine Injury-In-Fact In Challenges To Public Displays Of Religion, Ashley C. Robson
Fordham Law Review
This Note analyzes the unique standing problem introduced by a particular set of Establishment Clause cases: those concerning nontaxpayer–based challenges to alleged “public displays” of religious symbols. This injury–in–fact problem arises due to the nature of the specific type of harm recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the context of religious displays: the public endorsement of religion. Due to this unusually subjective harm, it is unclear how the courts should evaluate this threshold injury–in–fact inquiry. This Note analyzes the legal conflict arising from the attempt to remain faithful to both the traditional injury–in–fact standing requirements and the endorsement test …
Saving The First Amendment From Itself: Relief From The Sherman Act Against The Rabbinic Cartels, Barak D. Richman
Saving The First Amendment From Itself: Relief From The Sherman Act Against The Rabbinic Cartels, Barak D. Richman
Pepperdine Law Review
America’s rabbis currently structure their employment market with rules that flagrantly violate the Sherman Act. The consequences of these rules, in addition to the predictable economic outcomes of inflated wages for rabbis and restricted consumer freedoms for the congregations that employ them, meaningfully hinder Jewish communities from seeking their preferred spiritual leader. Although the First Amendment cannot combat against this privately-orchestrated (yet paradigmatic) restriction on religious expression, the Sherman Act can. Ironically, however, the rabbinic organizations implementing the restrictive policies claim that the First Amendment immunizes them from Sherman Act scrutiny, thereby claiming the First Amendment empowers them to do …
The Endorsement Test Is Alive And Well: A Cause For Celebration And Sorrow, Mark Strasser
The Endorsement Test Is Alive And Well: A Cause For Celebration And Sorrow, Mark Strasser
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Priority Of Law: A Response To Michael Stokes Paulsen, Eugene Volokh
The Priority Of Law: A Response To Michael Stokes Paulsen, Eugene Volokh
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Neutrality And The Good Of Religious Freedom: An Appreciative Response To Professor Koppelman, Richard W. Garnett
Neutrality And The Good Of Religious Freedom: An Appreciative Response To Professor Koppelman, Richard W. Garnett
Pepperdine Law Review
This paper is a short response to an address, “And I Don’t Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality in American Law,” delivered by Prof. Andrew Koppelman at a conference, “The Competing Claims of Law and Religion: Who Should Influence Whom?”, which was held at Pepperdine University in February of 2012. In this response, it is suggested – among other things – that “American religious neutrality” is, as Koppelman argues, “coherent and attractive” because and to the extent that it is not neutral with respect to the goal and good of religious freedom. Religious freedom, in the American tradition, is not …
The Priority Of God: A Theory Of Religious Liberty, Michael Stokes Paulsen
The Priority Of God: A Theory Of Religious Liberty, Michael Stokes Paulsen
Pepperdine Law Review
Professor Paulsen argues that religious freedom only makes entire sense as a constitutional arrangement on the premise that God exists, that God makes actual demands on human loyalty and conduct, and that those demands precede and are superior in obligation to those of the State. Religious freedom exists to protect the exercise of plausibly true understandings of God's actual commands, as against state power, and to disable state power to proscribe -- or prescribe -- religious exercise. The article explores four possible stances of society toward religious freedom, depending on whether society and state embrace the idea of religious truth …
Can We Please Stop Talking About Neutrality? Koppelman Between Scalia And Rawls, Chad Flanders
Can We Please Stop Talking About Neutrality? Koppelman Between Scalia And Rawls, Chad Flanders
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
And I Don’T Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality In American Law, Andrew Koppelman
And I Don’T Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality In American Law, Andrew Koppelman
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.