Law Commons^™

The Dueling First Amendment Clauses: Are They In Tension, Or Do They Work Together?, James Black

Helm's School of Government Conference - American Revival: Citizenship & Virtue

The Establishment and Free exercise clauses of the First Amendment respectively state that Congress does not have the ability to pass a law that would either establish a national religion or prohibit the free exercise of any religion. While some legal scholars have given a more secular interpretation of the Establishment Clause, suggesting that there is no place for Christianity or any other religion in the public square or to influence American government, this is in conflict with interpretation by a substantial number of legal experts and constitutional scholars living both in and before the modern era, some of whom …

Protecting "Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs": Lessons From Mississippi Hb 1523, Lindsay Krout Roberts

Mississippi College Law Review

The United States Supreme Court's revolutionary ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which guaranteed marriage equality for homosexual couples in every state, gave life to a new challenge in the area of free exercise of religion: to what extent should persons with religious objections to same-sex marriages be forced to participate in them? Should a Christian baker be legally required to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage to which he or she objects? Must a county clerk with religious objections to homosexual marriage sign a marriage license for a same-sex couple?

In an attempt to pre-empt these types of …

Who Let The Ghouls Out? The History And Tradition Test’S Embrace Of Neutrality And Pluralism In Establishment Cases, Jake S. Neill

Pepperdine Law Review

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court decided in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that an Establishment Clause inquiry “focused on original meaning and history” would replace Lemon’s endorsement test. But after announcing the test, the Court neglected to describe or apply it. This Comment attempts to fill that void. After analyzing the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, this Comment proposes tenets of the history and tradition test and applies those tenets to Allegheny County v. ACLU, a case decided under Lemon. Finally, this Comment concludes by arguing that the history and tradition inquiry supports pluralism, humility, tolerance, and a healthy …

Defining Religion And Accommodating Religious Exercise, Justin Collings, Anna Bryner

Indiana Law Journal

It is a volatile time in the jurisprudence of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. In recent terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has revisited many key Church-State and free exercise questions, and the Justices seem poised to revisit several more. Each of these fundamental questions presupposes an antecedent question: what, for constitutional purposes, is religion itself? The Court has never answered this question consistently or systematically. But, at least in the case of constitutionally mandated religious exemptions, a clear pattern emerges over time: the broader the Court’s definition of religion, the weaker its regime of religious exemptions. The reverse has also …

Religious Freedom And Diversity Missions: Insights From Jesuit Law Deans, Anthony E. Varona, Michèle Alexandre, Michael J. Kaufman, Madeleine M. Landrieu

Seattle University Law Review

This Article is a transcript of a panel moderated by Anthony E. Varona, Dean of Seattle University School of Law. During the panel, Jesuit and religious law school deans discussed what law schools with religious missions have to add to the conversation around SFFA and the continuing role of affirmative action in higher education.

Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stay Out Of My Head: Neurodata, Privacy, And The First Amendment, Wayne Unger

Washington and Lee Law Review

The once science-fictional idea of mind-reading is within reach as advancements in brain-computer interfaces, coupled with advanced artificial intelligence, produce neurodata—the collection of substantive thoughts as storable and processable data. But government access to individuals’ neurodata threatens personal autonomy and the right to privacy. While the Fourth Amendment is traditionally considered the source of privacy protections against government intrusion, the First Amendment provides more robust protections with respect to whether governments can access one’s substantive ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. However, many theorists assert that the concept of privacy conflicts with the First Amendment because privacy restricts the flow of information …

Reflections On The Creation Of The Jewish Law Institute At Touro, Randy Lee

Touro Law Review

Having interpreted the topic of our panel liberally, what I want to talk about today is why Sam Levine, director of Touro’s Jewish Law Institute, is here at the conference, or, to put it differently—why does Touro Law School have a Jewish law institute?”

Mysterizing Religion, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

A mystery of faith is a truth of religion that escapes human understanding. The mysteries of religion are not truths that human beings happen not to know, or truths that they could know with sufficient study and application, but instead truths that they cannot know in the nature of things. In the Letter to the Colossians, St. Paul writes that as a Christian apostle, his holy office is to “bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.” Note that Paul does not say that his task is to make …

Revisiting Employment Division V. Smith, Blaine L. Hutchison

University of Cincinnati Law Review

The Supreme Court wrongly decided Employment Division v. Smith. Without briefing or argument over the Free Exercise Clause’s meaning, Smith eliminated the constitutional right to exercise religion and replaced it with an equal protection rule. The decision threatens religious freedom and encourages conflict. The Supreme Court should revisit Smith. This article shows that the majority’s arguments in Smith fail and contradict the Free Exercise Clause’s text, purpose, and original meaning.

The Smith majority gave no sound legal or policy reason for its decision. Indeed, the decision conflicted with settled precedents that no party questioned. Nor did it determine …

Law Library Blog (April 2022): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

The New Thoreaus, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

Fifty years ago, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court famously indicated that “religion” denotes a communal rather than a purely individual phenomenon. An organized group like the Amish would qualify as religious, the Court wrote, but a solitary seeker like the nineteenth century transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau would not. At the time, the question was mostly peripheral; hardly any Americans claimed to have their own, personal religions that would make it difficult for them to comply with civil law. In the intervening decades, though, American religion has changed. One-fifth of us—roughly sixty-six million people—now claim, like Thoreau, to …

Covid-19, Churches, And Culture Wars, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause often requires courts to balance competing interests of the highest order. On the one hand, the Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion as a fundamental right. On the other hand, the government sometimes has compelling reasons for limiting free exercise, especially in situations involving dangers to health and safety. The shutdown and social distancing orders issued during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic not only restricted free exercise but also limited what many people consider to be the core of that exercise: religious worship. But the orders did so in order to …

Kū Kia‘I Mauna: Protecting Indigenous Religious Rights, Joshua Rosenberg

Washington Law Review

Courts historically side with private interests at the expense of Indigenous religious rights. Continuing this trend, the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court allowed the Thirty- Meter-Telescope to be built atop Maunakea, a mountain sacred to Native Hawaiians. This decision led to a mass protest that was organized by Native Hawaiian rights advocates and community members. However, notwithstanding the mountain’s religious and cultural significance, Indigenous plaintiffs could not prevent construction of the telescope on Maunakea.

Unlike most First Amendment rights, religious Free Exercise Clause claims are not generally subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Congress has mandated the application of strict scrutiny to …

God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions For Parsonages Yesterday, Today, And (If Constitutional) Tomorrow, Samuel D. Brunson

Indiana Law Journal

In 2019, the Seventh Circuit decided an Establishment Clause question that had been percolating through the courts for two decades. It held that the parsonage allowance, which permits “ministers of the gospel” to receive an untaxed housing allowance, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It grounded its conclusion in part on the “historical significance” test the Supreme Court established in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

In coming to that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited a 200-year unbroken history of property tax exemptions for religious property. According to the Seventh Circuit, that history demonstrated that both …

Fields V. Speaker Of Pennsylvania House Of Representatives, Heidi Moore

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Protections For Indigenous Sacred Sites, Stephanie H. Barclay, Michalyn Steele

Journal Articles

Meaningful access to sacred sites is among the most important principles to the religious exercise of Indigenous peoples, yet tribes have been repeatedly thwarted by the federal government in their efforts to vindicate this practice of their religion. The colonial, state, and federal governments of this Nation have been desecrating and destroying Native American sacred sites since before the Republic was formed. Unfortunately, the callous destruction of Indigenous sacred sites is not just a troubling relic of the past. Rather, the threat to sacred sites and cultural resources continues today in the form of spoliation from development, as well as …

What Is Caesar's, What Is God's: Fundamental Public Policy For Churches, Lloyd Histoshi Mayer, Zachary B. Pohlman

Journal Articles

Bob Jones University v. United States is both a highly debated Supreme Court decision and a rarely applied one. Its recognition of a contrary to fundamental public policy doctrine that could cause an otherwise tax-exempt organization to lose its favorable federal tax status remains highly controversial, although the Court has shown no inclination to revisit the case and Congress has shown no desire to change the underlying statutes to alter the case’s result. That lack of action may be in part because the IRS applies the decision in relatively rare and narrow circumstances.

The mention of the decision during oral …

Hands-Off Religion In The Early Months Of Covid-19, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

For decades, scholars have documented the United States Supreme Court’s “hands-off approach” to questions of religious practice and belief, pursuant to which the Court has repeatedly declared that judges are precluded from making decisions that require evaluating and determining the substance of religious doctrine. At the same time, many scholars have criticized this approach, for a variety of reasons. The early months of the COVID-19 outbreak brought these issues to the forefront, both directly, in disputes over limitations on religious gatherings due to the virus, and indirectly, as the Supreme Court decided important cases turning on religious doctrine. Taken together, …

Law Library Blog (September 2020): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Is This A Christian Nation?: Virtual Symposium September 25, 2020, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Contracts And The Constitution In Conflict: Why Judicial Deference To Religious Upbringing Clauses Infringes On The First Amendment, Elica Zadeh

Pepperdine Law Review

When a Hasidic person files for divorce under New York law, either party to the marriage may invoke a declaratory judgment action to establish certain rights in a settlement agreement. If children are involved, such an agreement may include a religious upbringing clause, dictating that the child is to be raised in accordance with their then-existing religion—Hasidism. Deviation from the contract risks removal from the aberrant parent who intentionally or unwittingly allows the child to wane into secularism. Although the child’s best interest is the cornerstone of custodial analysis, a problem emerges when his or her best interest is couched …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

Government Speech Doctrine—Legislator-Led Prayer's Saving Grace, Daniel M. Vitagliano

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that Lund was decided incorrectly in part because the Fourth Circuit failed to analyze the type of speech at issue before assessing the constitutionality of the prayer practice. This Note is composed of four parts. Part I surveys the Supreme Court’s legislative prayer jurisprudence—Marsh and Town of Greece. Part II outlines Lund and Bormuth, and the Fourth and Sixth Circuits’ dissimilar applications of the Supreme Court’s precedent. Part III argues that courts must first classify legislative prayers as either government or private speech before assessing whether a prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause. It further argues …

Free Exercise Standing: Extra-Centrality As Injury In Fact, Brendan T. Beery

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I of this Article surveys standing doctrine generally and tackles the problem of psychic insult—what might fairly, in some cases, be characterized as hurt feelings—as an injury. Part II addresses the special problems of finding concrete and palpable injuries in religion cases, noting that it is more difficult to identify such injuries in Establishment Clause cases than in free exercise cases. When free exercise is viewed as dynamic and kinetic, free exercise injuries are discernible and concrete: they occur when a person is forced to participate in religious undertakings or express beliefs against his or her will, or …

Left With No Name: How Government Action In Intra-Church Trademark Disputes Violates The Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment, Mary Kate Nicholson

Washington and Lee Law Review

The United States was founded in part on the principle of freedom of religion, where citizens were free to practice any religion. The founding fathers felt so strongly about this principle that it was incorporated into the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause states that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” The Supreme Court later adopted the neutral principles approach to avoid Free Exercise violations resulting from courts deciding real property disputes. Without the application of the same neutral principles to intellectual property disputes between churches, however, there is …

American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The Forum Of Conscience: Applying Standards Under The Free Exercise Clause, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder reenforced and amplified the Court's earlier holding in Sherbert v. Verner that the free exercise clause of the first amendment requires the state to render substantial deference to religiously motivated behavior in the application of its laws and regulatory schemes. In this article, Mr. Marcus traces the evolving standards of free exercise doctrine and observes that the "balancing test" which has resulted from that evolution requires still further refinement to give religious freedom its full constitutional due. The author then illustrates how the new standards of free exercise might be applied …