Law Commons^™

Columbia Law Experts Submit Two Briefs To Supreme Court In Free Speech/Lgb Rights Case, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School faculty and policy teams submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court on Friday in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case the Court will decide next term.

Obergefell, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Fulton, And Public-Private Partnerships: Unleashing V. Harnessing 'Armies Of Compassion' 2.0?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia presented a by-now familiar constitutional claim: recognizing civil marriage equality—the right of persons to marry regardless of gender—inevitably and sharply conflicts with the religious liberty of persons and religious institutions who sincerely believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. While the Supreme Court’s 9-0 unanimous judgment in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) surprised Court-watchers, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion did not signal consensus on the Court over how best to resolve the evident conflicts raised by the contract between CSS and the City of Philadelphia. This article argues that it …

Bigotry, Prophecy, Religion, And The Race Analogy In Marriage And Civil Rights Battles: Responding To Commentaries On Who's The Bigot?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most rewarding parts of writing a book is that it opens the door for constructive conversation with thoughtful and perceptive readers like the scholars who generously contributed to this book symposium. Their various essays touch on and offer powerful insights about the core concerns that I had when I wrote Who’s the Bigot? Learning from Conicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law. They offer thoughtful empirical and normative observations and surface useful questions about important future investigations. Were I able to write a next chapter—or a sequel—all these commentaries would shape its content. As it is, I …

Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments (telephonically) in the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health plans include contraception coverage, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. The case raises the important question of whether religious liberty rights can be used to limit access to health care at a time when the nation – and the world – is experiencing one of the worst global pandemics in human history. For this reason, the issues in this case take on special significance.

Lgbt Discrimination As Religious Discrimination: Ruse Or Resolution?, Craig Westergard

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

All Faiths & None: A Guide To Protecting Religious Liberty For Everyone, Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Katherine M. Franke, Keisha E. Mckenzie, Katharine Rhodes Henderson

Faculty Scholarship

Religious liberty rights have been immeasurably damaged over the past several years — often in the name of protecting religious liberty.

Government officials have embraced Islamophobic policies and rhetoric; shut the door on refugees fleeing religious persecution; elevated the religious rights of their political allies over the rights — religious and otherwise — of other communities; used religion as a tool of economic deregulation; and denigrated the beliefs of religious minorities, atheists, and religious progressives.

To achieve true freedom for those of all faiths and none, a complete overhaul of religious liberty policy, and a new understanding of what this …

Now, I'M Liberal, But To A Degree: An Essay On Debating Religious Liberty And Discrimination, Francis J. Beckwith

Cleveland State Law Review

This essay is a critical analysis of the book authored by John Corvino, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination. The book offers two contrary views on how best to think about some of the conflicts that have arisen over religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws, e.g., Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018). One position is defended by Corvino, and the other by Girgis and Anderson. After a brief discussion of the differing views of religious liberty throughout American history (including the American founding), this essay summarizes each …

Animus And Its Alternatives: Constitutional Principle And Judicial Prudence, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In a series of cases addressing sexual orientation and other issues, the Supreme Court has ruled that animus-based lawmaking is constitutionally impermissible. The Court treats animus as an independent and sufficient basis for invalidation. Moreover, it appears to regard animus as a doctrine of first resort, to be utilized even when an alternative constitutional rationale, such as declaring a challenged classification suspect or quasi-suspect, would readily justify the same result. Responding especially to Professor William D. Araiza’s elaboration and defense of the Court’s animus doctrine, I agree that this doctrine is sound, indeed compelling, as a matter of constitutional principle. …

Religion, Discrimination, And Government Funding: Enforcing Civil Rights Law After Masterpiece Cakeshop And Trinity Lutheran, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

A memorandum published by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School (formerly the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project) that clarifies the responsibility of state and local human rights agencies and commissions to robustly enforce civil rights laws — particularly in the context of government-funded social services — in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer

The Rhetoric Of Bigotry And Conscience In Battles Over "Religious Liberty V. Lgbt Rights", Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Charges, denials, and countercharges of “bigotry” are a familiar feature in debates over the evident conflict between LGBT rights and religious liberty. A frequent claim is that religious individuals who reject the extension of civil marriage to same-sex couples and seek conscience-based exemptions from state public accommodations law that protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are being “branded” as bigots. The rhetoric of bigotry raises a number of puzzles. Is sincerity or the appeal to conscience a defense to charge of bigotry? Is a charge of bigotry inferred simply from asserting that society should learn lessons from …

New Report Details Consequences Of Trump Administration’S Overly Broad Guidance On Religious Liberty, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Center For American Progress

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

April 3, 2018, Washington, D.C. – Obama-era rules prohibiting discrimination in dozens of federal programs could be undermined by the Trump administration’s controversial guidance on religious liberty, according to a new report from the Center for American Progress and Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project.

Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

In medical facilities across the country, doctors whose conscience would require them to perform a sterilization on a patient who requests one, offer truthful information about accessing abortion services, or provide comprehensive LGBTQ+ health care are forbidden from doing so by their employer. The conscience of such medical providers is entirely ignored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recently proposed rule that purports to “ensure that persons or entities” providing health care “are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” As explained in a comment submitted today by the Columbia …

Religious Liberty For A Select Few, Sharita Gruberg, Frank J. Bewkes, Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Katherine M. Franke, Claire Markham

Faculty Scholarship

This report discusses how the Department of Justice’s guidance opens the door to an extreme rewriting of the concept of religious liberty. The guidance — and the numerous agency rules, enforcement actions, and policies that it is influencing — will shift the balance of individual religious protections across the federal government toward a new framing that allows religious beliefs to be used as a weapon against minority groups.

Columbia Law Experts Denounce Doj Religious Liberty Guidance As Attack On Religious Liberty And Fundamental Equality Rights, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) denounces the memorandum released today by the Department of Justice (DOJ) entitled the “Federal Memorandum for Religious Liberty Protections.” This document, and its implementation guidance misinterpret the meaning and scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), demonstrating this administration’s continued commitment to elevating a particular set of religious beliefs over the safety and equality rights of women, LGBTQ people, people of color, and religious minorities.

Joint Statement By The Council On American-Islamic Relations Of New York & Columbia Law School’S Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, Council On American-Islamic Relations Of New York, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

As advocates for free exercise of religion, civil rights, and religious pluralism, we are deeply concerned that President Trump’s recently signed Executive Order “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” will serve to limit, not protect, religious freedom. The order was signed on May 4, 2017, in a ceremony that included Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman and statements by Pentecostal televangelist Paula White, Baptist Pastor Jack Graham, Catholic Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Rabbi Marvin Heir, and Vice President Mike Pence. While the executive order — unlike a prior leaked draft — does not single out particular religious beliefs for special protection, we …

Five Key Questions To Ask About The New Executive Order On Religious Liberty, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

In February, a draft of an Executive Order (EO) on religious liberty was leaked from the Trump Administration. This order would have had sweeping effects on the enforcement of federal law by all government agencies. In addition to harming LGBTQ communities, it would have had ramifications for unmarried pregnant and parenting women, patients seeking contraceptive care, religious minorities, cohabitating adults and others. President Trump is expected to sign an updated draft of the EO this week. The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) has outlined five questions to ask when analyzing and reporting on the new order.

Columbia Law School Think Tank Submits Amicus Brief In Transgender Rights Case, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

April 25, 2017 – Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) and Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP filed an amicus brief yesterday with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that raises the important question of whether employers can use religious liberty arguments to avoid compliance with federal non-discrimination laws. Specifically, it considers whether employers have the right to engage in sex discrimination if motivated by religious principles. The case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc., was brought on behalf of Aimee Stephens, a funeral home director who was fired …

Eeoc Proposed Guidance Shows We Can Protect Religious Freedom & Lgbtq Rights, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

While the President and Congress consider acts to expand religious exemptions at the expense of LGBTQ and other rights, a proposed federal regulation demonstrates that we can — and should — protect both religious and LGBTQ communities.

Unmarried And Unprotected: How Religious Liberty Bills Harm Pregnant People, Families, And Communities Of Color, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Increasingly, the long-standing national commitment to equality is being undermined by competing claims to religious liberty. Advocates, politicians, and the media have all documented the “wave of religious-freedom bills” introduced in recent years, “almost all inspired by objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.” In the 2015-2016 legislative session, dozens of bills were introduced at the state and federal levels that would have created exemptions to otherwise generally applicable laws, including antidiscrimination protections, for persons whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with those laws. The most extreme version of these bills would allow religious objectors to engage in a wide range …

Church, State & The Trump Administration, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to be a staunch defender of religious liberties. Nevertheless, his campaign promises, as well as statements made by him and his cabinet appointees, suggest that Trump holds a limited and deeply flawed understanding of religious freedom, among other constitutional rights and guarantees. While members of the new administration will act quickly and aggressively to advance certain conservative Christian religious tenets by limiting the rights of LGBTQ communities and curtailing access to reproductive health care, the President has promised to significantly restrain the rights of religious minorities by imposing a Muslim immigration ban, increase profiling …

Intimate Liberties And Antidiscrimination Law, Deborah A. Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In assessing laws that regulate marriage, procreation, and sexual intimacy, the Supreme Court has recognized a “synergy” between guaranteeing personal liberties and advancing equality. Courts interpreting the antidiscrimination laws that govern the private sector, however, often draw artificial and untenable lines between “conduct” and “status” to preclude protections for individuals or couples who face censure because of their intimate choices. This Article exposes how these arguments have been used to justify not only discrimination against the lesbian and gay community, but also discrimination against heterosexual couples who engage in non-marital intimacy or non-marital childrearing.

During the 1980s and 1990s, several …

A Free Speech Response To The Gay Rights/Religious Liberty Conflict, Andrew Koppelman

Northwestern University Law Review

The most sensible reconciliation of the tension between religious liberty and public accommodations law, in the recent cases involving merchants with religious objections to same-sex marriage, would permit business owners to present their views to the world, but forbid them either to threaten to discriminate or to treat any individual customer worse than others. Even if such businesses have no statutory right to refuse to facilitate ceremonies they regard as immoral, they are unlikely to be asked to participate in those ceremonies. This solution may, however, be forbidden by the law of hostile environment harassment. That raises a severe free …

Rfras And Reasonableness, Steve Sanders

Indiana Law Journal

The organized opponents of legal and social equality for gays and lesbians, particularly the foes of marriage for same-sex couples, have coalesced in recent years around the rallying cry of "religious liberty." In 2015, the conflict between LGBT rights and religious liberty intensified as legislators in seventeen states considered adopting Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Most of the national attention focused on Indiana, where legislators adopted a RFRA under pressure from religious conservatives, only to later amend it under pressure from business and civic leaders over concerns that the law sent a message endorsing anti-gay discrimination.

RFRAs, which typically require …

Civil Marriage For Same-Sex Couples, "Moral Disapproval," And Tensions Between Religious Liberty And Equality, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States and Europe, an increasing emphasis on equality has pitted rights claims against each other, raising profound philosophical, moral, legal, and political questions about the meaning and reach of religious liberty. Nowhere has this conflict been more salient than in the debate between claims of religious freedom, on one hand, and equal rights claims made on the behalf of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, on the other. As new rights for LGBT individuals have expanded in liberal democracies across the West, longstanding rights of religious freedom—such as the rights of religious communities …

Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom, And The Influence Of Obergefell V. Hodges On Distinguishing The Dividing Line, Kathleen Rainey Mcstravick

St. Mary's Law Journal

Obergefell v. Hodges, a United States Supreme Court case, added more fuel to the fire, leaving many to wonder how to voice religious opposition to same-sex marriages, and what are the second order effects for religious opposition in light of the new rule. The Court held the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Obergefell, brings the conflict between freedom of religion and LGBT rights to a new level by questioning how far freedom of religion can be used to refuse anti-discrimination statutes regarding sexual …

Testimony Regarding The First Amendment Defense Act (Fada), Katherine M. Franke, Elizabeth A. Sepper, Ariela Gross, Sylvia A. Law, Martin S. Flaherty, Suzanne B. Goldberg, Carol Sanger, J. Stephen Clark, Florens Wagman Roisman, Gregory Magarian, Caroline Mala Corbin, Nomi Stolzenberg, Carlos A. Ball, Aaron Ezra Waldman, Aziza Ahmed, Jennifer A. Drobac, Deborah Widiss, Arthur S. Leonard, Martha M. Ertman

Faculty Scholarship

My testimony today is delivered on behalf of twenty leading legal scholars who have joined me in providing an in depth analysis of the meaning and likely effects of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), were it to become law. We feel particularly compelled to provide testimony to this Committee because the first legislative finding set out in FADA declares that: “Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be addressed through legislation.” As leading legal scholars we must correct this statement: we do not concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and …

Testimony On Pennsylvania Sb1306: No Additional Protections For Religious Freedom, Katherine M. Franke, Burton Caine, Lenore F. Carpenter, Eric A. Feldman, Thersa Glennon, Nancy J. Knauer, Jules Lobel, Wendell Pritchett, Dara E. Purvis, Brishen Rogers, Victor C. Romero, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

On behalf of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School I offer the following legal analysis of Senate Bill 1306. Overall, the current version of the bill promises to modernize Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act by expanding antidiscrimination protections in employment to include sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination. Were the Pennsylvania legislature to pass SB 1306, the Commonwealth would join twenty-two states that include sexual orientation and nineteen states that include gender identity in their laws assuring equal employment opportunities for their citizens.

Religious Accommodations And – And Among – Civil Rights: Separation, Toleration, And Accommodation, Richard W. Garnett

Richard W Garnett

This paper expands on a presentation at a recent conference, held at Harvard Law School, on the topic of “Religious Accommodations in the Age of Civil Rights.” In it, I emphasize that the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in …

Free Exercise For Whom? -- Could The Religious Liberty Principle That Catholics Established In Perez V. Sharp Also Protect Same-Sex Couples' Right To Marry?, Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson

Recent discussions about the threat that same-sex couples hypothetically pose to the religious freedom of Americans whose religions traditions frown upon same-sex unions have largely overlooked the possibility that same-sex couples might have their own religious-liberty interest in being able to marry. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ brought the issue to the fore with an April 2014 lawsuit challenging North Carolina laws barring same-sex marriages. Authored by a lawyer who represented the California Council of Churches and other religions organizations as amici curiae in recent marriage-equality litigation, this article argues that although marriage is a secular …

Religious Accommodations And – And Among – Civil Rights: Separation, Toleration, And Accommodation, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper expands on a presentation at a recent conference, held at Harvard Law School, on the topic of “Religious Accommodations in the Age of Civil Rights.” In it, I emphasize that the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in …