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.

Education Is Speech: Parental Free Speech In Education, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Education is speech. This simple point is profoundly important. Yet it rarely gets attention in the First Amendment and education scholarship.

Among the implications are those for public schools. All the states require parents to educate their minor children and at the same time offer parents educational support in the form of state schooling. States thereby press parents to take government educational speech in place of their own. Under both the federal and state speech guarantees, states cannot pressure parents, either directly or through conditions, to give up their own educational speech, let alone substitute state educational speech. This abridges …

Legal Scholars & Theologians Partner On An Ambitious Vision For Religious Liberty, Elizabeth Reiner Platt

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Oct. 6, 2020—To safeguard the right to religious freedom, the next presidential administration must end the hyper-surveillance of Muslims, welcome religious refugees, protect land sacred to Native communities, restore church-state separation, and withdraw policies that favor particular religious beliefs, argues a new report co-authored by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia University (LRRP) and Auburn Seminary.

“First Amendment Defense Act” (Fada) Is Reintroduced In The Senate, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, March 8, 2018–The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project is dismayed that the deceptively named “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) was reintroduced into the U.S. Senate today by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Not only is this bill unnecessary to the protection of religious liberty in the United States, its language would be harmful to the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

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 …

More Is Less, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Is the First Amendment's right of free exercise of religion conditional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that "the right of every man to exercise ['Religion'] ... is in its nature an unalienable right" and "therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society." In contrast, during the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly conditioned the right of free exercise on compelling government interests. The Court not merely qualifies the practice of the …