Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Private Schools' Role And Rights In Setting Vaccination Policy: A Constitutional And Statutory Puzzle, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

Measles and other vaccine-preventable childhood diseases are making a comeback, as a growing number of parents are electing not to vaccinate their children. May private schools refuse admission to these students? This deceptively simple question raises complex issues of First Amendment law and statutory interpretation, and it also has implications for other current hot-button issues in constitutional law, including whether private schools may discriminate against LGBTQ students. This Article is the first to address the issue of private schools’ rights to exclude unvaccinated children. It finds that the answer is “it depends.” It also offers a model law that states …

Private Schools' Role And Rights In Setting Vaccination Policy: A Constitutional And Statutory Puzzle, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

Measles and other vaccine-preventable childhood diseases are making a comeback, as a growing number of parents are electing not to vaccinate their children. May private schools refuse admission to these students? This deceptively simple question raises complex issues of First Amendment law and statutory interpretation, and it also has implications for other current hot-button issues in constitutional law, including whether private schools may discriminate against LGBTQ students. This Article is the first to address the issue of private schools’ rights to exclude unvaccinated children. It finds that the answer is “it depends.” It also offers a model law that states …

Stopping The Resurgence Of Vaccine-Preventable Childhood Diseases: Policy, Politics, And Law, Hillel Y. Levin, Stacie Patrice Kershner, Timothy D. Lytton, Daniel Salmon, Saad B. Omer

Scholarly Works

Mandatory vaccination programs in the United States are generally successful, but their continued success is under threat. The ever-increasing number of parents who opt their children out of vaccination recommendations has caused severe outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Public health advocates have pushed for changes to state laws, but their efforts have generally been unsuccessful. We suggest that their lack of success is due to public health advocates’ failures to contend with the features of the political system that impede change and to propose reforms that are ethically defensible, efficacious, and politically feasible. Based on our earlier public health studies, ethical …

Adjudicating Religious Sincerity, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

Recent disputes about the “contraception mandate” under the Affordable Care Act and about the provision of goods and services for same-sex weddings have drawn attention to the law of religious accommodations. So far, however, one of the requirements of a religious accommodation claim has escaped sustained scholarly attention: a claimant must be sincere. Historically, scholars have contested this requirement on the ground that adjudicating religious sincerity requires government officials to delve too deeply into religious questions, something the Establishment Clause forbids. Until recently, however, the doctrine was fairly clear: though the government may not evaluate the objective accuracy or plausibility …

Why Some Religious Accommodations For Mandatory Vaccinations Violate The Establishment Clause, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

All states require parents to inoculate their children against deadly diseases prior to enrolling them in public schools, but the vast majority of states also allow parents to opt out on religious grounds. This religious accommodation imposes potentially grave costs on the children of non-vaccinating parents and on those who cannot be immunized. The Establishment Clause prohibits religious accommodations that impose such costs on third parties in some cases, but not in all. This presents a difficult line-drawing problem. The Supreme Court has offered little guidance, and scholars are divided.

This Article addresses the problem of religious accommodations that impose …

Comments Submitted To The Department Of Health And Human Services Regarding Religious Exemptions To Contraceptive Coverage, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Following the Supreme Court's decision to vacate and remand the cases in Zubik v. Burwell, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a request for information on alternative ways to accommodate religious nonprofits from compliance with the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), CMS-9931-NC. The following comment, from the Law, Rights, and Religion Project, explains that the ACA's existing religious accommodation complies with federal law, and that expanding the accommodation in a way that harms employees and their families would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Further, this comment highlights the effects an …

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Catholic Charities Of The Diocese Of Albany V. Serio, Sarah Marx

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Rfra Exemptions From The Contraception Mandate: An Unconstitutional Accommodation Of Religion", Frederick Mark Gedicks, Rebecca G. Van Tassell

Frederick Mark Gedicks

Litigation surrounding use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to exempt employers from the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” is moving steadily towards eventual resolution in the U.S. Supreme Court. Both opponents and supporters of the mandate, however, have overlooked Establishment Clause limits on such exemptions. The fiery religious-liberty rhetoric surrounding the mandate has obscured that RFRA is a “permissive” rather than “mandatory” accommodation of religion—that is, a voluntary government concession to religious belief and practice that is not required by the Free Exercise Clause. Permissive accommodations must satisfy Establishment Clause constraints, notably the requirement that the accommodation not impose …

Could Government Speech Endorsing A Higher Law Resolve The Establishment Clause Crisis., Bruce Ledewitz

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Establishment Clause crisis exists due to the Supreme Court’s promise that America would have a secular government—meaning one which was neutral between religion and irreligion, as well as being neutral to all religions. This promise evolved pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, the commitment to neutrality was never carried to fulfillment by the Court. The crisis may be illustrated by Congress’ addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. This addition seemed to violate the promise of neutrality made by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education …

School Voucher Programs: Has The Supreme Court Pulled Up The Gangplank To Establishment Clause Challenges., Cecil C. Kuhne Iii

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Establishment Clause is not violated when a program is neutral toward religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens, who in turn voluntarily direct the aid to religious schools. A program containing these features permits government aid to reach religious institutions only thru the deliberate choices of individuals. Any incidental advancement or endorsement of religion is attributable to the individual recipient—not the government, which simply acts as a disburser. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court reiterated this rationale from a twenty-year line of cases. Zelman is a death knell for Establishment Clause challenges to carefully …

Religion In Public Schools: Let Us Pray - Or Not., Carolyn Hanahan, David M. Feldman

St. Mary's Law Journal

This Essay addresses judicial interpretation and application of the religious protections of students in public schools. Part II addresses the evolution of the law governing prayer in public schools, including the creation of judicial tests utilized in determining whether a school district has impeded the rights of students in the area of religion. Part III examines the application of these tests to various activities, including a discussion of the disparity in judicial interpretation with respect to the permissibility of prayer at public school functions. This Essay concludes with a discussion analyzing the effect of the recent United States Supreme Court …

A Holy Mess: School Prayer, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of Texas, And The First Amendment., David S. Stolle

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held the traditional compelling state interest standard for Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence should be replaced by a new test requiring a statute or government action to be facially neutral and generally applicable. In response to Smith, Congress, relying on its Enforcement Clause powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, attempted to resurrect the compelling state interest standard by passing the Religious Freedom of Restoration Act (RFRA). In June 1999, the Texas legislature passed the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). This Comment argues the TRFRA is unnecessary …

The Natural Law Tradition On The Modern Supreme Court: Not Burke, But The Enlightenment Tradition Represented By Locke, Madison, And Marshall., R. Randall Kelso

St. Mary's Law Journal

A traditional common-law style of judicial decisionmaking exists which was present at this nation’s founding. This common law style is derived from natural law tradition. And this tradition stands as an alternative to the formalism of Justice Scalia or the Holmesian style of Chief Justice Rehnquist. This natural law style, with its focus on the religious and communitarian ethical tradition, was the dominant view of judicial interpretation for the framing and ratifying generation of the original Constitution and the Civil War Amendments. The decisionmaking style of Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter appears to have great affinity with this traditional common-law …

God Is Dead: Killed By Fifty Years Of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence., Raul M. Rodriguez

St. Mary's Law Journal

In 1980, the Supreme Court in Stone v. Graham addressed the issue of whether a statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Applying the Lemon test the Court found the statute’s purpose to be religious and ruled it unconstitutional. Yet, had the state required the placement of the following “secular commandments” in every classroom, it is unlikely the Court would have found an Establishment Clause violation. Stone illustrates what the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has become. The Court has misconstrued the meaning of the “establishment of religion” …