Law Commons^™

Is Worship A Unique Subject Or A Way Of Approaching Many Different Subjects? Two Recent Decisions That Attempt To Answer This Question Set The Second And Ninth Circuits On A Course Toward State Entanglement With Religion, John Tyler

Mercer Law Review

Does exclusion of worship services from a limited public forum constitute discrimination on the basis of viewpoint or subject matter? Is worship a unique subject matter or a way of expressing views on many different subjects? And if worship is a unique subject matter, what expressive activities fall within that category? In other words, what is the legal definition of worship?

These are the questions that the United States Supreme Court's seminal decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School left unanswered. Good News Club was a case from New York that involved a constitutional challenge to the local …

Standing Room Only: Federal Taxpayers Denied Standing To Challenge President's Faith-Based Programs In Hein V. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Patricia Mary Quinlan

Mercer Law Review

During the 2006-2007 Term, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether federal taxpayers have standing to challenge the constitutionality of executive expenditures that allegedly violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., the plaintiffs, asserting standing based on their status as federal taxpayers, objected to the use of congressional appropriations to fund a faith-based program created by President George W. Bush as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Although no single analysis commanded five votes, a majority of the Court agreed to dismiss the case for lack …

Signed, Your Coach: Restricting Speech In Athletic Recruiting In Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n V. Brentwood Academy, Brian Craddock

Mercer Law Review

In Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n v. Brentwood Academy ("Brentwood I/,), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that an athletic association may enforce its anti-undue-influence recruiting policy, restricting the speech of its voluntary member schools, to avoid undue influence on young student athletes during the recruitment process. In reaching its holding, the Court extended two lines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, the Court extended the application of Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n to a context other than attorney-client solicitation for the first time. In doing so, the Court held that the possibility of undue influence in athletic recruiting …