Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Deference And Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa Toward "Strict In Theory, Strict In Fact", Barrick Bollman
Deference And Prisoner Accommodations Post-Holt: Moving Rluipa Toward "Strict In Theory, Strict In Fact", Barrick Bollman
Northwestern University Law Review
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) requires prisons to make accommodations to regulations that substantially burden a prisoner’s religious exercise, unless the prison can show that the regulation is the least restrictive means to meeting a compelling interest. This language suggests strict scrutiny, and yet in Cutter v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court instead intimated in dicta that courts should give prison officials “due deference” when applying this test. The 2015 case of Holt v. Hobbs presented the Court with an opportunity to clarify how much deference is due under RLUIPA. Though Holt declared that there should …
A Free Speech Response To The Gay Rights/Religious Liberty Conflict, Andrew Koppelman
A Free Speech Response To The Gay Rights/Religious Liberty Conflict, Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University Law Review
The most sensible reconciliation of the tension between religious liberty and public accommodations law, in the recent cases involving merchants with religious objections to same-sex marriage, would permit business owners to present their views to the world, but forbid them either to threaten to discriminate or to treat any individual customer worse than others. Even if such businesses have no statutory right to refuse to facilitate ceremonies they regard as immoral, they are unlikely to be asked to participate in those ceremonies. This solution may, however, be forbidden by the law of hostile environment harassment. That raises a severe free …
Ties That Bind? The Questionable Consent Justification For Hosanna-Tabor, Jessie Hill
Ties That Bind? The Questionable Consent Justification For Hosanna-Tabor, Jessie Hill
Northwestern University Law Review
Arguments in favor of religious sovereignty often emphasize the benefits of autonomy for religious institutions while ignoring the civil rights of individuals who belong to or work for those institutions. To justify intrusions on individual civil rights, proponents of strong religious autonomy generally rely on the concept of implied consent. According to this rationale, individuals willingly give up the protection of civil rights laws when they voluntarily join religious organizations. This Essay responds to one scholar’s account of the consent rationale as undergirding the Supreme Court’s recognition of the ministerial exception: Christopher Lund’s excellent article, Free Exercise Reconceived: The Logic …
Ties That Bind? The Questionable Consent Justification For Hosanna-Tabor, Jessie Hill
Ties That Bind? The Questionable Consent Justification For Hosanna-Tabor, Jessie Hill
NULR Online
No abstract provided.