Religion Law Commons^™

Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord

Washington Law Review

Recent increases in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws have generated new conversations in the free exercise of religion debate. While federal courts have been wrestling with claims brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since the nineteenth century, city and state efforts to codify legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the mid-twentieth century birthed novel challenges. Private individuals who do not condone intimate same-sex relationships and/or gender non-conforming behavior, on religious grounds seek greater legal protection for the ability to refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ+ persons. Federal and state courts must determine how to resolve these …

Kū Kia‘I Mauna: Protecting Indigenous Religious Rights, Joshua Rosenberg

Washington Law Review

Courts historically side with private interests at the expense of Indigenous religious rights. Continuing this trend, the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court allowed the Thirty- Meter-Telescope to be built atop Maunakea, a mountain sacred to Native Hawaiians. This decision led to a mass protest that was organized by Native Hawaiian rights advocates and community members. However, notwithstanding the mountain’s religious and cultural significance, Indigenous plaintiffs could not prevent construction of the telescope on Maunakea.

Unlike most First Amendment rights, religious Free Exercise Clause claims are not generally subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Congress has mandated the application of strict scrutiny to …

Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") prohibits state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person": (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest," and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). The Question Presented is: Whether RLUIPA requires that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely …

Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED In Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), this Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), renders unlawful an absolute ban on inmates' wearing a beard for religious reasons. The Eleventh Circuit, subsequent to and despite this Court's decision in Holt, rejected a RLUIPA challenge to Alabama's similarly inflexible policy prohibiting all male inmates from wearing long hair for religious reasons. A vast majority of states, the District of Columbia, and all federal prisons accommodate inmates whose religious practices include wearing beards or long hair. The Question Presented is: Whether Alabama's …

The Anabaptist Conscience And Religious Exemption To Jury Service, Michael Hatfield

Articles

While the concern over religiously devout Americans who wish to serve on juries is a serious one, a potential juror dismissed from service over his or her religiosity suffers a real but relatively abstract damage. The punishment is being sent home when they want to stay.

This Article examines a different issue with more severe consequences: religiously devout citizens who risk being jailed for refusing to serve on a jury. Rather than asking whether Jesus could serve on a jury, this Article addresses whether we should force Jesus to serve if he said God told him not to. More specifically, …