Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Church, State & The Trump Administration, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Church, State & The Trump Administration, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to be a staunch defender of religious liberties. Nevertheless, his campaign promises, as well as statements made by him and his cabinet appointees, suggest that Trump holds a limited and deeply flawed understanding of religious freedom, among other constitutional rights and guarantees. While members of the new administration will act quickly and aggressively to advance certain conservative Christian religious tenets by limiting the rights of LGBTQ communities and curtailing access to reproductive health care, the President has promised to significantly restrain the rights of religious minorities by imposing a Muslim immigration ban, increase profiling …
Trump And Cabinet Nominees Seek To Restrict Muslim Rights, Break Down The Wall Between Church And State, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Trump And Cabinet Nominees Seek To Restrict Muslim Rights, Break Down The Wall Between Church And State, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
A new document issued by the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School outlines the numerous areas in which the Trump administration will seek to advance particular conservative Christian tenets, restrict the rights of religious minorities, and break down the barrier between church and state. Enactment of the administration’s policy priorities would call into question the careful balance that currently exists between the First Amendment and other fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The report, entitled Church, State & the Trump Administration, highlights the ways in which the new administration’s early executive actions and cabinet nominations, as …
Supreme Court Amicus Brief Of 22 Corporate Law Professors, Mark Janus V. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al, No. 16-1466, John C. Coates, Iv, Lucian A. Bebchuk, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, James D. Cox, Marcel Kahan, Reinier Kraakman, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Ronald J. Gilson, Vikramaditya S. Khanna, Michael Klausner, Henry Hansmann, Donald C. Langevoort, Brian J.M. Quinn, Michal Barzuza, Mira Ganor, Edward B. Rock, Mark J. Roe, Helen S. Scott, Holger Spamann, Randall S. Thomas
Supreme Court Amicus Brief Of 22 Corporate Law Professors, Mark Janus V. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al, No. 16-1466, John C. Coates, Iv, Lucian A. Bebchuk, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, James D. Cox, Marcel Kahan, Reinier Kraakman, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Ronald J. Gilson, Vikramaditya S. Khanna, Michael Klausner, Henry Hansmann, Donald C. Langevoort, Brian J.M. Quinn, Michal Barzuza, Mira Ganor, Edward B. Rock, Mark J. Roe, Helen S. Scott, Holger Spamann, Randall S. Thomas
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court has looked to the rights of corporate shareholders in determining the rights of union members and non-members to control political spending, and vice versa. The Court sometimes assumes that if shareholders disapprove of corporate political expression, they can easily sell their shares or exercise control over corporate spending. This assumption is mistaken. Because of how capital is saved and invested, most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about corporate political activities, even after the fact, nor can they prevent their savings from being used to speak in ways with which they disagree. Individual shareholders have no “opt …