Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Separate And Unequal: The Law Of "Domestic" And "International" Terrorism, Shirin Sinnar
Separate And Unequal: The Law Of "Domestic" And "International" Terrorism, Shirin Sinnar
Michigan Law Review
U.S. law differentiates between two categories of terrorism. “International terrorism” covers threats with a putative international nexus, even when they stem from U.S. citizens or residents acting only within the United States. “Domestic terrorism” applies to political violence thought to be purely domestic in its origin and intended impact. The law permits broader surveillance, wider criminal charges, and more punitive treatment for crimes labeled international terrorism. Law enforcement agencies frequently consider U.S. Muslims “international” threats even when they have scant foreign ties. As a result, they police and punish them more intensely than white nationalists and other “domestic” threats. This …
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …
The EngelCase From A Swiss Perspective, F. William O'Brien
The EngelCase From A Swiss Perspective, F. William O'Brien
Michigan Law Review
On June 25, 1962, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of New York, by using its public school system to encourage recitation of a prayer during classroom hours, had adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with that clause of the first amendment, applicable to the states by virtue of the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion. The opinion of the Court, written by Mr. Justice Black for himself and four other Justices, is interesting in that he rests the Court's decision exclusively upon the establishment clause. In previous decisions, the Court had …