Religion Law Commons^™

Federal Funds To Religious Groups: Where Are The First Amendment Boundaries?, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Preaching To The Court House And Judging In The Temple, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

Wagering On Religious Liberty, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

The Story Of A Forgotten Battle, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

Law, Religious Change, And Samesex Marriage Posted On, Nathan B. Oman

Nathan B. Oman

No abstract provided.

The Forum Of Conscience: Applying Standards Under The Free Exercise Clause, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder reenforced and amplified the Court's earlier holding in Sherbert v. Verner that the free exercise clause of the first amendment requires the state to render substantial deference to religiously motivated behavior in the application of its laws and regulatory schemes. In this article, Mr. Marcus traces the evolving standards of free exercise doctrine and observes that the "balancing test" which has resulted from that evolution requires still further refinement to give religious freedom its full constitutional due. The author then illustrates how the new standards of free exercise might be applied …

Symposium Introduction: The Religion Clauses In The 21st Century, William P. Marshall, Vivian E. Hamilton, John E. Taylor

Vivian E. Hamilton

No abstract provided.

Religious V. Secular Ideologies And Sex Education: A Response To Professors Cahn And Carbone, Vivian E. Hamilton

Vivian E. Hamilton

No abstract provided.

Comment On The Definition Of "Eligible Organization" For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Robert P. Bartlett, Richard M. Buxbaum, Stavros Gadinis, Justin Mccrary, Stephen Davidoff Solomon, Eric L. Talley

Richard M. Buxbaum

This comment letter was submitted by U.C. Berkeley corporate law professors in response to a request for comment by the Health and Human Services Department on the definition of "eligible organization" under the Affordable Care Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. "Eligible organizations" will be permitted under the Hobby Lobby decision to assert the religious principles of their shareholders to exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate for employees.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that the nexus of identity between several closely-held, for-profit corporations and their shareholders holding “a …

Comment On The Definition Of "Eligible Organization" For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventive Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Robert P. Bartlett, Richard M. Buxbaum, Stavros Gadinis, Justin Mccrary, Stephen Davidoff Solomon, Eric L. Talley

Robert Bartlett

This comment letter was submitted by U.C. Berkeley corporate law professors in response to a request for comment by the Health and Human Services Department on the definition of "eligible organization" under the Affordable Care Act in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. "Eligible organizations" will be permitted under the Hobby Lobby decision to assert the religious principles of their shareholders to exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate for employees.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that the nexus of identity between several closely-held, for-profit corporations and their shareholders holding “a …

The Paradox Of Christian-Based Political Advocacy: A Reply To Professor Calhoun, Wayne R. Barnes

Wayne R. Barnes

Professor Calhoun, in his Article around which this symposium is based, has asserted that it is permissible for citizens to publicly argue for laws or public policy solutions based on explicitly religious reasons. Calhoun candidly admits that he has “long grappled” with this question (as have I, though he for longer), and, in probably the biggest understatement in this entire symposium, notes that Professor Kent Greenawalt identified this as “a particularly significant, debatable, and highly complex problem.” Is it ever. I have a position that I will advance in this article, but I wish to acknowledge at the outset that …

Separation Of Church And State: Jefferson, Lincoln, And The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended To Separate Religion From Politics, Samuel W. Calhoun

Samuel W. Calhoun

This Essay argues that it’s perfectly fine for religious citizens to openly bring their faith-based values to public policy disputes. Part II demonstrates that the Founders, exemplified by Thomas Jefferson, never intended to separate religion from politics. Part III, focusing upon Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to slavery, shows that religion and politics have been continuously intermixed ever since the Founding. Part IV, emphasizing the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., argues that no other reasons justify barring faith-based arguments from the public square.

If Separation Of Church And State Doesn’T Demand Separating Religion From Politics, Does Christian Doctrine Require It?, Samuel W. Calhoun

Samuel W. Calhoun

This Essay responds to comments by Wayne Barnes, Ian Huyett, and David Smolin on my prior Article, Separation of Church and State: Jefferson, Lincoln, and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Show It Was Never Intended to Separate Religion From Politics. Part II, although noting a few disagreements with Huyett and Smolin, principally argues that they strengthen the case for the appropriateness of religious arguments in the public square. Part III evaluates Wayne Barnes’s contention that Christian doctrine requires separating religion from politics.

Jews And The Culture Wars: Consensus And Dissensus In Jewish Religious Liberty Advocacy, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Social Contract Neutrality And The Religion Clauses Of The Federal Constitution, Gregory S. Sergienko

Greg Sergienko

'Neutrality' has become the slogan that the Supreme Court uses for judging all claims of freedom of religion whether under the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause. However, the word 'neutrality' conceals the Court's inconsistent use of the concept. Thus, in Rosenberger v. Rectors of the University of Virginia, the recent debate about funding for religious publications, both the majority and the dissent asserted that only their approach was truly neutral. This inconsistency in the meaning of neutrality in the religion clauses is merely part of a general inconsistency in the Court's treatment of the religion clauses. Some of …

When Judges Are Theologians: Adjudicating Religious Questions, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Implied Consent To Religious Institutions: A Primer And A Defense, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Eclecticism, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

This short piece comments on Kent Greenawalt's new book, Religion and the Constitution: Establishment and Fairness. It argues that although Greenawalt's eclectic approach carries certain obvious costs, his theory cannot be evaluated without comparing its advantages and disadvantages to those of its competitors. It concludes by giving some sense of what that comparative calculus might look like.

Smith In Theory And Practice, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

Employment Division v. Smith controversially held that general laws that were neutral toward religion would no longer be presumptively invalid, regardless of how much they incidentally burdened religious practices. That decision sparked a debate that continues today, twenty years later. This symposium Essay explores the argument that subsequent courts have in fact been less constrained by the principal rule of Smith than advocates on both sides of the controversy usually assume. Lower courts administering real world disputes often find they have all the room they need to grant relief from general laws, given exceptions written into the decision itself and …

Nonbelievers, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

How should courts handle nonbelievers who bring religious freedom claims? Although this question is easy to grasp, it presents a genuine puzzle because the religion clauses of the Constitution, along with many contemporary statutes, protect only religion by their terms. From time to time, judges and lawyers have therefore struggled with the place of nonbelievers in the American scheme of religious freedom. Today, this problem is gaining prominence because of nonbelievers’ rising visibility. New lines of social conflict are forming around them, generating disputes that have already gone legal. In this Article, I argue that no wholesale response will do. …

Government Nonendorsement, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

What are the constitutional limits on government endorsement? Judges and scholars typically assume that when the government speaks on its own account, it faces few restrictions. In fact, they often say that the only real restriction on government speech is the Establishment Clause. On this view, officials cannot endorse, say, Christianity, but otherwise they enjoy wide latitude to promote democracy or denigrate smoking. Two doctrines and their accompanying literatures have fed this impression. First, the Court’s recent free speech cases have suggested that government speech is virtually unfettered. Second, experts on religious freedom have long assumed that there is no …

Associations And The Constitution: Four Questions About Four Freedoms, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

No abstract provided.

Excluding Religion, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

No abstract provided.

A Fixture On A Changing Court: Justice Stevens And The Establishment Clause, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Global Issues In Freedom Of Speech And Religion: Cases And Materials, Leslie Gielow Jacobs, Alan Brownstein

Leslie Gielow Jacobs

Brownstein and Jacobs's Global Issues in Freedom of Speech and Religion: Cases and Materials is a companion volume to existing materials. Designed to assist professors in introducing issues of international and comparative law, this title is ideal for use in educational courses that address:

• The First Amendment
• Law and religion
• Individual rights
• Other topics dealing with free speech and religious liberty

In order to make companion materials understandable and accessible to students as well as to professors who have not taught the materials before, this title:

• Includes case excerpts, helpful background materials, and notes
• Is set out in a structure …

Disaggregating Corpus Christi: The Illiberal Implications Of Hobby Lobby's Right To Free Exercise, Katharine Jackson

Katharine Jackson

This paper first examines and critiques the group rights to religious exercise derived from the three ontologies of the corporation suggested by different legal conceptions of corporate personhood often invoked by Courts. Finding the implicated groups rights inimical to individual religious freedom, the paper then presents an argument as to why a discourse of intra-corporate toleration and voluntariness does a better job at protecting religious liberty.

Law, Religion, And Politics: Understanding The Separation Of Church And State, Richard Garnett

Richard W Garnett

Professor Richard Garnett, of University of Notre Dame Law School, presented on the topic Law, Religion, and Politics: Understanding the Separation of Church and State. This workshop was presented as part of the Hesburgh Lecture Series through the Alumni & Friends of University of Notre Dame and was co-sponsored by the Notre Dame Alumni Club of Miami. This workshop examined how to understand the Constitution's "separation of church and state" and what it requires of religious believers and institutions.

No Free Lunch, But Dinner And A Movie (And Contraceptives For Dessert)?, John C. Eastman

John C. Eastman

"Simply A Constitutional Legal Question?": Law, Religion And The Modern State, Benjamin L. Berger

Benjamin L. Berger

Benjamin L. Berger, Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, on key questions about law, religion, and social change.

Stemming The Hobby Lobby Tidal Wave: Why Rfra Challenges To Obama's Executive Order Prohibiting Federal Contractors From Discriminating Against Lgbt Employees Will Not Succeed, Kayla Higgins

Kayla Higgins

On July 21, 2014 President Obama released Executive Order 13672, which expressly aimed to provide for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit discrimination and take further steps to promote economy and efficiency in Federal Government procurement by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Some commentators believe that the order “could be the next battleground” for the competing views of religious leaders and liberals when it comes to how to weigh religious liberty against other priorities. However, there are two main reasons why the most recent executive order should not crumble under the Hobby Lobby …