Religion Law Commons^™

Quiet Encroachments On School Prayer Jurisprudence, Amanda Harmony Cooley

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Let The Ghouls Out? The History And Tradition Test’S Embrace Of Neutrality And Pluralism In Establishment Cases, Jake S. Neill

Pepperdine Law Review

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court decided in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that an Establishment Clause inquiry “focused on original meaning and history” would replace Lemon’s endorsement test. But after announcing the test, the Court neglected to describe or apply it. This Comment attempts to fill that void. After analyzing the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, this Comment proposes tenets of the history and tradition test and applies those tenets to Allegheny County v. ACLU, a case decided under Lemon. Finally, this Comment concludes by arguing that the history and tradition inquiry supports pluralism, humility, tolerance, and a healthy …

Protecting Islam's Garden From The Wilderness: Halal Fraud Statutes And The First Amendment, Elijah L. Milne

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Like all religions, Islam needs protection from governmental encroachment. As early as 1644, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, recognized that state involvement in religious matters defiles religion. "When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of [religion] and the wilderness of the world," wrote Williams, "God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made His garden a wilderness ... ." Although Williams was mostly concerned about the government's impact on Christianity, his oft-quoted metaphor applies equally to the government's influence on Islam. This Article will discuss …

Let’S Go To The Beach: Gender Segregation As A Tool To Accommodate Religious Minorities, Sarah Gibbons

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

American Legion V. American Humanist Ass'n: Exempting Longstanding Governmental Religious Displays From Establishment Clause Scrutiny And How The Endorsement Test Could Have Prevented It, M. Allison Hyde

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Where Does It Fit? Solving The School Board Prayer Puzzle, Austin Reed

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Reflections On The Church/State Puzzle, Kermit V. Lipez

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Devotion ̶T̶O̶ And The Rule Of Law: Acknowledging The Role Of Religious Values In Judicial Decision-Making, Priya Purohit

Indiana Law Journal

This Comment advocates for the acknowledgment of religious values in judicial decision-making in three parts. Part I explores the role of religion in American politics, and more specifically, the role of religion in federal judicial confirmation hearings and state-level judicial elections. Membership to an institutionalized religion often performs an essential gatekeeping function when it comes to assessing the background or personal values of a candidate for political or judicial office. The initially positive role of religion in judicial selection processes suggests that the practice of refusing to acknowledge the role that religion likely already plays in judicial decision-making is wholly …

Tipped Scales: A Look At The Ever-Growing Imbalance Of Power Protecting Religiously Motivated Conduct, Why That's Bad, And How To Stop It, Jeff Nelson

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the current state of the law that seemingly allows individuals to harm and discriminate against others on the basis of their protected religious beliefs. This Note also explores how such a result has been made possible and how it may be stymied by judicial and legislative action. Section II discusses a short history of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause leading up to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and also includes an examination of both the real and possible harmful effects of RFRAs, current reactions to the application of these laws domestically, and interesting parallels internationally. Section III …

Is There Any Silver Lining To Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. V. Comer?, Caroline Mala Corbin

Michigan Law Review Online

Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Comer is a significant setback for a strong separation of church and state. Missouri denied a playground grant to Trinity Lutheran because of a state constitutional provision that bans financial aid to churches. The church sued. The Supreme Court held not only that the Establishment Clause allowed the government to give taxpayer money to Trinity Lutheran, but that the Free Exercise Clause required it. The decision's many flaws are not the focus of this short Essay. Instead, this Essay dissects the Supreme Court's reasoning in order to apply it to current controversies in related areas …

Religion Lessons From Europe: Intolerant Secularism, Pluralistic Neutrality, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Antony Barone Kolenc

Pace International Law Review

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates to the U.S. Supreme Court how a pluralistic neutrality principle can enrich the American society and harness the value of faith in the public sphere, while at the same time retaining the vigorous protection of individual religious rights. The unfortunate alternative to a jurisprudence built around pluralistic neutrality is the inevitability of intolerant secularism—an increasingly militant separation of religious ideals from the public life, leading ultimately to a repressive society that has no room in its government for religious citizens. The results of intolerant secularism are seen in a recent …

Putting Faith In Europe: Should The U.S. Supreme Court Learn From The European Court Of Human Rights?, Antony Barone Kolenc

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Lautsi Decision And The American Establishment Clause Experience: A Response To Professor Weiler, William P. Marshall

Maine Law Review

In Lautsi v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) held that an Italian law requiring crucifixes to be displayed in public school classrooms did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights (“European Convention”). In so holding, the ECHR sent the message that it would not incorporate American nonestablishment norms into its interpretation of the European Convention. They key advocate behind the Lautsi decision was Professor Joseph Weiler. Representing the nations intervening in the case on behalf of Italy, Professor Weiler took the lead in arguing against a strict nonestablishment interpretation of the European Convention—the position that the …

Constitutional Law: If These Walls Could Talk: Giving Undue Deference To Religious Actors By Expanding The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine—Pfeil V. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church Of Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Jeremy D.F. Krahn

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Exceptionalism Unbound: Appraising American Resistance To Foreign Law, Mark C. Rahdert

Catholic University Law Review

In a statewide referendum, voters approved a change to the Oklahoma state constitution, adopting restrictions on state judges’ ability to use of foreign law. Dubbed the “Save Our State” (“SOS”) Amendment, the measure forbade Oklahoma state judges from considering or using international or foreign law, except where required to do so by federal statutes or treaties. The SOS Amendment particularly prohibited the use of Sharia law. Similar measures (usually without specific references to Sharia law) have been proposed or adopted elsewhere.

These Amendments, as well as other developments in American politics, reflect a vigorous new strain of a deep-seated tendency …

A Line Drawn By Unsteady Hands: Section 170, Charitable Contributions, And Return Benefits In Hernandez V. C.I.R., David M. Phipps

Akron Law Review

This Note analyzes the majority decision and dissenting opinion in Hernandez, which have far-reaching implications for charitable organizations, taxpayers, and the government. Traditional tax deductions for charitable organizations may be in danger and these organizations may suffer economic difficulty?

Of Flags And Menorahs: The Power Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech, Mark F. Kohler

Akron Law Review

The aim of this article will be to explore the nature of symbolic speech, both individual and governmental. Using Johnson and Allegheny County as a backdrop, four themes will emerge from the article. First, both individuals and government speak and speak powerfully through symbols and symbolic conduct. Second, medium-based regulation of individual speech should receive careful judicial scrutiny. Third, unlike individual symbolic expression, governmental symbolic speech is subject to substantial content-based restrictions. Finally, careful distinctions must be drawn between government-initiated symbolic speech and governmental endorsement of individual symbolic speech.

Aclu V. Capitol Square Review And Advisory Board: Is There Salvation For The Establishment Clause? "With God All Things Are Possible.", Theologos Verginis

Akron Law Review

Part II of this Note provides a cursory review of the evolution of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and it particularly focuses on the primary tests for analyzing the Establishment Clause that the Supreme Court has promoted over the years. Part III discusses the procedural history of the "Ohio State Motto" case with particular emphasis on the courts' decisions and their reasoning. Part IV analyzes the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District and addresses some of the concerns that inhere in the decision. Finally, Part V concludes the Note.

Revival: Toward A Formal Neutrality Approach To Economic Development Transfers To Religious Institutions, Ryan A. Doringo

Akron Law Review

Part I of this Note explores the contours of the complicated history of the Establishment Clause by examining the creation of the Lemon test and the inconsistencies of the test’s subsequent application. The Note then explores Justice O’Connor’s endorsement modification to that test. Part I concludes with a discussion of the Supreme Court’s move toward embracing a principle formal neutrality. Part II provides a factual history of the transfer at issue and a detailed summary of the District Court’s opinion in Wirtz. Part III of the Note explains that the Constitution does not preclude economic development transfers to religious institutions. …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

Marquette Law Review

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

“Islamic Law” In Us Courts: Judicial Jihad Or Constitutional Imperative?, Faisal Kutty

Pepperdine Law Review

At the beginning of 2014, about a dozen states introduced or re-introduced bills to ban the use of Sharī’ah law. They hope to join the seven states that have ostensibly banned it to date. Anti-Sharī’ah advocates have cited a number of cases to back their tenuous claim that Sharī’ah is stealthily sneaking in through the doctrine of comity, but a close examination of the cases they cite contradicts their claim. Comity, when one court defers to the jurisdiction of another, has been accepted and denied based on legal principles and public policy, on a case-by-case basis. There is no creeping …

Installations Of Jewish Law In Public Urban Space: An American Eruv Controversy, Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article analyzes the ongoing controversy over the installation of an eruv in Westhampton Beach. The author first provides an analytical description of the case with reference to other recent eruv controversies. Similar to arguments advanced in earlier eruv controversies, lawyers in the Westhampton case have taken recourse to the First Amendment, with proponents of the eruv relying on the free exercise clause, and opponents relying on the establishment clause. The article then proceeds to discuss the implications of this controversy for the larger issues of religion in the public sphere, as one of the critical issues emerging in all …

Supreme Court, Kings County, Wilson V. Kilkenny, James Dougherty

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Saving The First Amendment From Itself: Relief From The Sherman Act Against The Rabbinic Cartels, Barak D. Richman

Pepperdine Law Review

America’s rabbis currently structure their employment market with rules that flagrantly violate the Sherman Act. The consequences of these rules, in addition to the predictable economic outcomes of inflated wages for rabbis and restricted consumer freedoms for the congregations that employ them, meaningfully hinder Jewish communities from seeking their preferred spiritual leader. Although the First Amendment cannot combat against this privately-orchestrated (yet paradigmatic) restriction on religious expression, the Sherman Act can. Ironically, however, the rabbinic organizations implementing the restrictive policies claim that the First Amendment immunizes them from Sherman Act scrutiny, thereby claiming the First Amendment empowers them to do …

The Endorsement Test Is Alive And Well: A Cause For Celebration And Sorrow, Mark Strasser

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Priority Of Law: A Response To Michael Stokes Paulsen, Eugene Volokh

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Neutrality And The Good Of Religious Freedom: An Appreciative Response To Professor Koppelman, Richard W. Garnett

Pepperdine Law Review

This paper is a short response to an address, “And I Don’t Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality in American Law,” delivered by Prof. Andrew Koppelman at a conference, “The Competing Claims of Law and Religion: Who Should Influence Whom?”, which was held at Pepperdine University in February of 2012. In this response, it is suggested – among other things – that “American religious neutrality” is, as Koppelman argues, “coherent and attractive” because and to the extent that it is not neutral with respect to the goal and good of religious freedom. Religious freedom, in the American tradition, is not …

The Priority Of God: A Theory Of Religious Liberty, Michael Stokes Paulsen

Pepperdine Law Review

Professor Paulsen argues that religious freedom only makes entire sense as a constitutional arrangement on the premise that God exists, that God makes actual demands on human loyalty and conduct, and that those demands precede and are superior in obligation to those of the State. Religious freedom exists to protect the exercise of plausibly true understandings of God's actual commands, as against state power, and to disable state power to proscribe -- or prescribe -- religious exercise. The article explores four possible stances of society toward religious freedom, depending on whether society and state embrace the idea of religious truth …