Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Pepperdine Law Review
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …
The Right To Conscience Vs. The Right To Die: Physician-Assisted Suicide, Catholic Hospitals, And The Rising Threat To Institutional Free Exercise In Healthcare, Zachary R. Carstens
The Right To Conscience Vs. The Right To Die: Physician-Assisted Suicide, Catholic Hospitals, And The Rising Threat To Institutional Free Exercise In Healthcare, Zachary R. Carstens
Pepperdine Law Review
An imminent conflict is developing between religious healthcare institutions opposed to physician-assisted death (PAD) and their healthcare employees who wish to offer PAD to their patients. When these interests clash, institutional conscience claims must prevail over doctors’ desires and patients’ demands. This article catalogues the incomplete patchwork of conscience protections guaranteed to American healthcare workers and institutions, as well as the swiftly accelerating wave of PAD legalization sweeping the states. The article documents the tactical vocabulary—deployed with nearly identical language in every state PAD statute—that conspicuously anticipates con-science objections from the massive, and staunchly anti-PAD, Catholic healthcare system. Notably, in …
The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe
The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe
Pepperdine Law Review
In recent work, Steven Smith argues that the American tradition of religious freedom is newly imperiled and may even be nearing exhaustion. This Review puts to one side the substance of that argument and focuses instead on what the stakes might be, should it turn out to be correct. It concludes that the consequences would not be as severe as many people fear.
Unemployment Insurance And The Religion Clauses Of The United States Constitution, David J. Agatstein
Unemployment Insurance And The Religion Clauses Of The United States Constitution, David J. Agatstein
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
No abstract provided.
Heffron V. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View Of The Proselytizing Rights Of Religious Organizations , Michael M. Greenburg
Heffron V. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View Of The Proselytizing Rights Of Religious Organizations , Michael M. Greenburg
Pepperdine Law Review
The persistent efforts of religious organizations to reach their public have consistently been met with governmental limitation due to the often conflicting interests of public order, and free speech and expression. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. represents the Court's latest redefinition of the extent of permissible limitations upon the activities of these groups. The author examines the decision in light of the traditional criteria for permissible time, place, and manner restrictions upon free speech and evaluates the Court's implementation of these restrictions with respect to the activities of the Krishna group. The impact of the decision upon …
A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner
A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner
Pepperdine Law Review
In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the appropriate level of review to be applied in cases which examine the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that the "compelling state interest" test is the proper standard to be used. The Court also accorded first amendment protection to beliefs which are not shared by other members of a religious group and which are instead the unique interpretation of an individual member and not acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.
Public Policy Against Religion: Doubting Thomas , Richard H. Seeburger
Public Policy Against Religion: Doubting Thomas , Richard H. Seeburger
Pepperdine Law Review
In free exercise cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a least restrictive alternative test in an attempt to maximize protection for religiously motivated practices. Because the least restrictive alternative test only considers the importance of the governmental interest and the availability of alternative means to accomplish those interests, thereby ignoring the importance of the burdened religious activity to the individual and the degree of burden on religious activity, all religious interests are treated equally when asserted against a governmental interest. Under such an inflexible and brittle test, the Supreme Court has recently denied religious claims which had previously been recognized. …