Law Commons^™

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …

Arbitration's Counter-Narrative: The Religious Arbitration Paradigm, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Arbitration theory and doctrine is dominated by an overarching narrative that conceptualizes arbitration as an alternative to litigation. Litigation, one the one hand, is more procedurally rigorous, but takes longer and costs more; arbitration, on the other hand, is faster and cheaper, but provides fewer procedural safeguards. But notwithstanding these differences, both arbitration and litigation ultimately serve the same purpose: resolving disputes. Indeed, this narrative has been pervasive, becoming entrenched not only in recent Supreme Court decisions, but also garnering support from both arbitration critics and supporters alike.

This Article, however, contends that this exclusive focus on arbitration’s standard narrative …

Religious Institutionalism, Implied Consent And The Value Of Voluntarism, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

Increasingly, clashes between the demands of law and aspirations of religion center on the legal status and treatment of religious institutions. Much of the rising tensions revolving around religious institutions—exemplified by recent Supreme Court decisions such as Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby—stem from conflicts between the religious objectives of those institutions and their impact on third parties who do not necessarily share those same objectives. This Article aims to provide a framework for analyzing the claims of religious institutions by grounding those claims in the principle of voluntarism. On such an account, religious institutions deserve protection because …

The Challenge Of Co-Religionist Commerce, Michael A. Helfand, Barak D. Richman

Michael A Helfand

This Article addresses the rise of “co-religionist commerce” in the United States—that is, the explosion of commercial dealings that take place between co-religionists who intend their transactions to achieve both commercial and religious objectives. To remain viable, co-religionist commerce requires all the legal support necessary to sustain all other commercial relationships. Contracts must be enforced, parties must be protected against torts, and disputes must be reliably adjudicated.

Under current constitutional doctrine, co-religionist commercial agreements must be translated into secular terminology if there are to be judicially enforced. However, religious goods and services often cannot be accurately translated without religious terms …

Hobby Lobby's Challenge To Officialdom's 'Compelling Interest', Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

The Murkiness Of The Hobby Lobby Ruling, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

America Doesn't See Its Religious Minorities, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Essay presented at the Sharia and Halakha in America Conference explores the unique status of religious law as a hybrid concept that simultaneously retains the characteristics of both law and religion. To do so, the Article considers as a case study how courts should evaluate procedural challenges to religious arbitration awards. To respond to such challenges, courts must treat religious law as law when defining the contractually adopted religious procedural rules and treat religious law as religion when reviewing precisely what the religious procedural rules require. On this account, constitutional and arbitration doctrine combine to insulate religious arbitration awards …

Panelist, “The Current Clash”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Implied Consent: A Proposal On For-Profit Conscience, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Obamacare And Religious Rights In A For-Profit World, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, "Enforcing Co-Religionist Commerce", Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, "Enforcing Co-Religionist Commerce", Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker And Panelist, Interfaith Program On “Religion And Politics: Power And Empowerment”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Moderator, “Religious Law In U.S. Courts”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Beit Din's Gap-Filling Function: Using Beit Din To Protect Your Client, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This article considers how rabbinical courts play an important gap-filling role by providing parties with a forum to adjudicate a subset of religious disputes that could not be resolved in court. Under current constitutional doctrine, civil courts cannot adjudicate disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice. By contrast, rabbinical courts can resolve such disputes--and the decisions of rabbinical courts can then be enforced by civil courts even as those same civil courts could not resolve the dispute in the first instance. In this way, rabbinical courts--like other religious arbitration tribunals--fill a void created by constitutional law, ensuring that parties …

Speaker, “Enforcing Co-Religionist Commerce”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “On Religion And Money”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “On Religion And Money”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards (Video), Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Between Law And Religion: Procedural Challenges To Religious Arbitration Awards”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Religion's Wise Embrace Of Commerce, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Speaker, “Religion’S Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

A Liberalism Of Sincerity: The Role Of Religion In The Public Square, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This article considers the extent to which the liberal nation-state ought to accommodate religious practices that contravene state law and to incorporate religious discourse into public debate. To address these questions, the article develops a liberalism of sincerity based on John Locke’s theory of toleration. On such an account, liberalism imposes a duty of sincerity to prevent individuals from consenting to a regime that exercises control over matters of core concern such as faith, religion, and conscience. Liberal theory grounds the legitimacy of the state in the consent of the governed, but consenting to an intolerant regime is illegitimate because …

What Is A "Church"?: Implied Consent And The Contraception Mandate, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This Article considers the “religious employer” exception to the “contraception mandate” – that is, the “preventative care” requirements announced by Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This exception has triggered significant litigation with a variety of employers claiming that they have been excluding from the “religious employer” classification in violation of both the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In considering these claims, this Article applies an “implied consent” framework to these cases, which grounds the authority of religious institutions in the presumed consent of their members. On such …

Religion's Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC has been hailed as an unequivocal victory for religious liberty, the Court’s holding in footnote four – that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar – undermines decades of conventional thinking about the relationship between church and state. For some time, a wide range of scholars had conceptualized the relationship between religious institutions and civil courts as “jurisdictional” – that is, scholars converged on the view that the religion clauses deprived courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over religious claims. In turn, courts could not adjudicate religious disputes …

Litigating Religion, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

This article considers how parties should resolve disputes that turn on religious doctrine and practice – that is, how people should litigate religion. Under current constitutional doctrine, litigating religion is generally the task of two types of religious institutions: first, religious arbitration tribunals, whose decisions are protected by arbitration doctrine, and religious courts, whose decision are protected by the religion clauses. Such institutions have been thrust into playing this role largely because the religion clauses are currently understood to prohibit courts from resolving religious questions – that is, the “religious question” doctrine is currently understood to prohibit courts from litigating …

Speaker, “Religion’S Footnote Four: Church Autonomy As Arbitration”, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

No, Bloomberg Isn't Banning Circumcision, Michael Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.