Law Commons^™

Misunderstanding Freedom From Religion: Two Cents On Madison's Three Pence, Kyle Duncan

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Congressional Chaplaincies, Christopher C. Lund

Christopher C Lund

Twenty five years ago, in Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court considered the congressional chaplaincies, and concluded that they were not “an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment,” but instead were “simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” That latter phrase has been repeated hundreds of times in cases and law review articles; it suggests that the chaplaincies are uninteresting and uncontroversial and that they have been so throughout our history.

The Court in Marsh looked only briefly at the history of the chaplaincies. But a deeper look at that history …

August 3, 2008: Is There A Common Core To Religion?, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Is There a Common Core to Religion?“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

July 27, 2008: Hallowed Secularism And The Fear Of Death, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Blog post, “Hallowed Secularism and the Fear of Death“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation to religion and public life in the democratic United States of America.

May 2, 2008: The Hatred Of Islam, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

The Hatred of Islam

Standing In The Way Of Clarity: Hein V. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., Mark Wankum

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This article deals with the often misunderstood and maligned issue of taxpayer standing. It seeks to explore the Court's standing jurisprudence as it has evolved from "cases and controversies" to a modern constitutional doctrine. The article begins with a discussion of the Framers' judiciary and the development of a modern standing doctrine. It then turns to the area of taxpayer and citizen suits, exploring the judicial landmarks and landmines from Frothigham v. Mellon to Flast. Next, applications and limitations of the Flast test during the Burger, Rehnquist, and early Roberts Courts are explored, before turning to the most recent decision …

Does The Constitutional Norm Of Separation Of Church And State Justify The Denial Of Tax Exemption To Churches That Engage In Partisan Political Speech?, Johnny Buckles

Johnny Buckles

The Internal Revenue Service is aggressively investigating churches for their alleged political endorsements of candidates in the 2008 presidential election. At issue is whether these churches have violated section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes a ban on electioneering by churches and other charities as a condition of maintaining federal income tax exemption. The ban has been justified as necessary to ensure the proper separation of church and state. This article critically analyzes this rationale for the ban. Four major variants of the separationist argument are articulated and thoroughly analyzed in the context of relevant Supreme Court case …

Mis-Under-Standing Freedom From Religion: Two Cents On Madison's Three Pence, Kyle Duncan

Kyle Duncan

Forty years ago in Flast v. Cohen, the Supreme Court created, for Establishment Clause cases only, a dramatic exception to a bedrock principle of standing doctrine, based on one catchy phrase from a famous historical document—James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. The Court has been notoriously bad at Establishment Clause history, but Flast seemed to push the envelope. Yet neither the Court nor commentators seemed to question Flast’s historical credentials over the last four decades. Recently, the Supreme Court took up the standing question again in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. Unhappily, the justices’ various …

State Funding Of Devotional Studies: A Failed Jurisprudence That Has Lost Its Moorings, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The Court’s attitude toward the public funding of devotional studies can best be described as ambivalent. Not long ago, devotional studies were viewed as one of the few kinds of study that the state clearly could not fund. Then, the Court did an about-face, implying that public funding of devotional studies does not violate constitutional guarantees, because that kind of study cannot be distinguished for constitutional purposes from other kinds of permissibly funded areas of study. Still more recently, the Court has changed course yet again, suggesting that states may but need not refuse to fund such studies, reverting to …

January 29, 2008: Randall Balmer On Fresh Air, Bruce Ledewitz

Hallowed Secularism

Randall Balmer on Fresh Air

Corruption Of Religion And The Establishment Clause, Andrew Koppelman

Faculty Working Papers

Government neutrality toward religion is based on familiar considerations: the importance of avoiding religious conflict, alienation of religious minorities, and the danger that religious considerations will introduce a dangerous irrational dogmatism into politics and make democratic compromise more difficult. This paper explores one consideration, prominent at the time of the framing, that is often overlooked: the idea that religion can be corrupted by state involvement with it. This idea is friendly to religion but, precisely for that reason, is determined to keep the state away from religion.

If the religion-protective argument for disestablishment is to be useful today, it cannot …

Taking Politics Religiously: Can Free Exercise And Establishment Clause Cases Illuminate The Law Of Democracy?, Pamela S. Karlan

Indiana Law Journal

Harris Lecture delivered at Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington on February 16, 2007.

Do Churches Matter? Towards An Institutional Understanding Of The Religion Clauses, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

In recent years, several prominent scholars have called attention to the importance and role of First Amendment institutions and there is a growing body of work informed by an appreciation for what Professor Balkin calls the infrastructure of free expression. The freedom of expression, he suggests, requires more than mere absence of government censorship or prohibition to thrive; [it] also require[s] institutions, practices and technological structures that foster and promote [it]. The intuition animating this scholarship, then, is that the freedom of expression is not only enjoyed by and through, but also depends on the existence and flourishing of, certain …

Shifting Out Of Neutral: Intelligent Design And The Road To Nonpreferentialism, Kelly S. Terry

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Cross To Bear: The Need To Weigh Context In Determining The Constitutionality Of Religious Symbols On Public Land, Catherine Ansello

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

The Cross At College: Accommodation And Acknowledgment Of Religion At Public Universities, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In the fall of 2006, President Gene Nichol of the College of William & Mary decided that the college - a public institution - should no longer display a cross on the altar table of the college's Wren Chapel. He ordered the cross moved to a back room, from which it could be returned to the altar table during Christian worship. This decision sparked an outcry from many Christian conservatives, who asserted that President Nichol was undermining the college's historical legacy. After a period of campus furor, a special Committee proposed and the President accepted a compromise - the cross …

'The Devil Is In The Details': A Continued Dissection Of The Constitutionality Of Faith-Based Prison Units, Lynn S. Branham

All Faculty Scholarship

Faith-based prison units can afford prisoners who choose to be housed in them the concentrated and sustained spiritual nourishment that they believe they need to grow spiritually or in other ways. But critics claim that these units abridge the Establishment Clause. This Article debunks two of the arguments most frequently asserted against the constitutionality of faith-based units. The first is that prisoners cannot exercise a "true private choice" in the "inherently coercive" environment of a prison to live in such a unit. But court decisions confirm that confinement does not abnegate the voluntariness of other decisions made by prisoners, such …

The Genesis Of Rluipa And Federalism: Evaluating The Creation Of A Federal Statutory Right And Its Impact On Local Government, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

In 2000, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), designed to provide protection from discrimination for the exercise of religion for incarcerated individuals and for those in need of various municipal permits or approvals in order to exercise their religion. With seven years of experience in the courts, this article examines the impact of RLUIPA on local governments across the country through an analysis of how the courts have been interpreting and applying statutory ambiguities and creating inconsistent doctrine in an effort to define terms and implement RLUIPA's protections. Whether an appropriate …

Judicial Enforcement Of The Establishment Clause, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper is the author’s contribution to a roundtable conference, held in October of 2008 at Notre Dame Law School, devoted to Prof. Kent Greenawalt’s book, Religion and the Constitution: Establishment and Fairness. It is suggested that Greenawalt’s admirably context-sensitive approach to church-and-state questions might lead us to think that the best course for judges is to find (somehow) some bright-line, on-off “rules” and “tests”, constructed to identify and forbid the most obvious violations of the Religion Clause’s core (whatever that is), and to give up on -- or, perhaps, “underenforce” -- the rest.

Brief Comments On An Intermediate Position, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

I am going to start with some clarifications about how I see this topic. Some of what I say may be a bit repetitive, but I think it can be helpful. I do not see this subject as mainly about the force of the Establishment Clause. With Judge McConnell, I think there is a big difference between promoting a religious position, let's say, which I think teaching creationism is, and deciding some moral or political issue based on a religious judgment, such as whether there should be restrictive abortion law. And I do not think this is a question of …