Religion Law Commons^™

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

Religious Alternative Dispute Resolution In Israel And Other Nations With State-Sponsored Religious Courts: Crafting A More Efficient And Better Relationship Between Rabbinical Courts And Arbitration Law In Israel, Michael J. Broyde, Ezra Ives

Faculty Articles

This paper proposes the expansion of both private and public options regarding religious arbitration in Israel, broadening both the choice of law and the choice of forum available to Israeli citizens in cases of either commercial law or issues of status (such as divorce, marriage, and conversion). The current law in Israel prohibits citizens from adjudicating their monetary disputes in state religious courts and treats private religious courts as no different from any other arbitration tribunal, precluding these private religious courts from marriage, divorce and conversion matters. We propose that both of these restrictions be lifted, while the role of …

In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State Of Mind Relates To Religious Arbitration, Skylar Reese Croy

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

Arguably, binding religious arbitration agreements are constitutionally problematic because they hinder freedom of religion: They inhibit parties’ ability to change their beliefs. However, religious arbitration agreements also offer an outlet for the religiously inclined to further practice their beliefs. This Article offers a middle ground: If a party to a religious arbitration agreement changes religion, he or she can claim a “conscientious objector” status if he or she can prove the agreement violates his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. Courts are allowed to inquire into the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs. The religious question doctrine — which restricts …

Religious Courts In Secular Jurisdictions: How Jewish And Islamic Courts Adapt To Societal And Legal Norms, Rabea Benhalim

Publications

At first glance, religious courts, especially Sharia courts, seem incompatible with secular, democratic societies. Nevertheless, Jewish and Islamic courts operate in countries like the United States, England, and Israel. Scholarship on these religious courts has primarily focused on whether such religious legal pluralism promotes the value of religious freedom, and if so, whether these secular legal systems should accommodate the continued existence of these courts. This article shifts the inquiry to determine whether religious courts in these environments accommodate litigants’ popular opinions and the secular, procedural, and substantive justice norms of the country in which they are located. This article …

The Future Of Religious Arbitration In The United States: Looking Through A Pluralist Lens, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Religious Arbitration And Its Struggles With American Law & Judicial Review, Sukhsimranjit Singh

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Multicultural Adr And Family Law: A Brief Introduction To The Complexities Of Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde

Faculty Articles

Recent polls indicate that the U.S. population is getting less religious and more secular. This seems to mirror the nation’s— and its laws’—movement away from reflecting certain traditional values. While these movements have left some members of the religious population in a precarious situation, surrounded by a society whose values are changing before their eyes, it has also caused the religious to cling tighter to their respective faiths and become more entrenched in the values they assert.

As the government has, slowly but surely, aligned itself with the popular shift away from traditional religious values, the pleas of the religious …

Religious Law, Family Law And Arbitration: Shari'a And Halakha In America, Mohammad H. Fadel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The possibility that Muslims might use private arbitration as a forum in which their family law disputes could be settled according to the principles of Islamic law has generated substantial controversy, with one liberal democracy, Canada, even taking affirmative steps to insure that religious-based arbitration of family law disputes are denied legal recognition. This paper argues that such moves are ill-considered. From the perspective of political liberalism, the arbitration of family law disputes within a framework of religious law, provided that the arbitration is subject to review by a public court for conformity with public policy, is an ideal tool …

Faith-Based Private Arbitration As A Model For Preserving Rights And Values In A Pluralistic Society, Michael J. Broyde

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article discusses private arbitration in religious and values-oriented communities. Using contract law as the foundation for arbitration law, religious arbitration panels can function almost like courts so long as the government can assure basic fairness and proper procedures, while allowing the parties to resolve their private dispute as the parties wish. This article explains that to be enforced, these private courts must meet the procedural requirements set by the Federal Arbitration Act, but American arbitration law is not generally concerned with the substantive law used by these tribunals, although this article recommends practices that religious tribunals ought to adopt …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael A. Helfand

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This Article explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules, but treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards from judicial scrutiny even on procedural grounds, leaving courts …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …

Arbitration's Counter-Narrative: The Religious Arbitration Paradigm, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Arbitration theory and doctrine is dominated by an overarching narrative that conceptualizes arbitration as an alternative to litigation. Litigation, one the one hand, is more procedurally rigorous, but takes longer and costs more; arbitration, on the other hand, is faster and cheaper, but provides fewer procedural safeguards. But notwithstanding these differences, both arbitration and litigation ultimately serve the same purpose: resolving disputes. Indeed, this narrative has been pervasive, becoming entrenched not only in recent Supreme Court decisions, but also garnering support from both arbitration critics and supporters alike.

This Article, however, contends that this exclusive focus on arbitration’s standard narrative …

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …