Religion Law Commons^™

Blood Will Tell: Scientific Racism And The Legal Prohibitions Against Miscegenation, Keith E. Sealing

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

This article first examines the miscegenation paradigm in terms of a seven-point conceptual framework that not merely allowed but practically demanded anti-miscegenation laws, then looks at the legal arguments state courts used to justify the constitutionality of such laws through 1967. Next, it analyzes the Biblical argument, which in its own right justified miscegenation, but also had a major influence on the development of the three major strands of scientific racism: monogenism, polygenism and Darwinian theory. It then probes the concept upon which the entire edifice is constructed-race--and discusses the continuing vitality of this construct. Next, this article turns to …

The Ninth Circuit's "Hybrid Rights" Error: Three Losers Do Not Make A Winner In Thomas V. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, Eric J. Neal

Seattle University Law Review

Because the Ninth Circuit, in reaching its Thomas decision, relied on Smith's hybrid rights language, this Note will focus on the court's analysis of that subject. By applying the hybrid rights' dicta instead of following the actual holding in Smith, the Ninth Circuit reached a conclusion that is illogical and does not comport with current Supreme Court free exercise jurisprudence. This Note will discuss the Thomas court's analysis and will propose a logical interpretation of Smith that more closely reflects the Supreme Court's actual position regarding the Free Exercise Clause.

Charitable Choice And The Critics, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

First, the statute prohibits the government from discriminating with regard to religion when determining whether providers are eligible to deliver social services under these programs. Second, the statute imposes on government the duty not to intrude into the religious autonomy of faith-based providers. Third, the statute imposes on both government and participating FBOs the duty not to abridge certain rights of the ultimate beneficiaries of these programs. I will touch on these three principles below, and do so in reverse order.

Revisiting Gay Rights Coalition Of Georgetown Law Center V. Georgetown University A Decade Later: Free Exercise Challenges And The Nondiscrimination Laws Protecting Homosexuals, Matthew J. Parlow

Matthew Parlow