Law Commons^™

Parental Rights And The State Regulation Of Religious Schools, Matthew Steilen

Matthew Steilen

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the United States Supreme Court invalidated convictions of several Amish parents for removing their children from school in violation of state mandatory attendance laws. In reaching its decision, the Court argued that protecting the Amish parents’ decisions fit into a longstanding American tradition of giving parents control over the upbringing of their children. Yet the Supreme Court mischaracterized the history of parental rights and state interests in education. Contemporary historical research shows that parents have long ceded a large measure of control to the state in the education of their children. Still, very little has been …

Putting Faith In Europe: Should The U.S. Supreme Court Learn From The European Court Of Human Rights?, Antony Barone Kolenc

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Circuit And The Refugee Eo: Establishing Confusion, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Lautsi Decision And The American Establishment Clause Experience: A Response To Professor Weiler, William P. Marshall

Maine Law Review

In Lautsi v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) held that an Italian law requiring crucifixes to be displayed in public school classrooms did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights (“European Convention”). In so holding, the ECHR sent the message that it would not incorporate American nonestablishment norms into its interpretation of the European Convention. They key advocate behind the Lautsi decision was Professor Joseph Weiler. Representing the nations intervening in the case on behalf of Italy, Professor Weiler took the lead in arguing against a strict nonestablishment interpretation of the European Convention—the position that the …

Columbia Law School Think Tank Provides Testimony To New York City Council On Gender And Racial Equity Training, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

April 27, 2017 — On Monday, April 24, Ashe McGovern, Legislative and Policy Director of Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) testified before the New York City Council Committee on Women’s Issues on a bill that would require several city agencies to undergo training on “implicit bias, discrimination, cultural competency and structural inequity, including with respect to gender, race and sexual orientation.”

Unmarried And Unprotected: How Religious Liberty Bills Harm Pregnant People, Families, And Communities Of Color, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Increasingly, the long-standing national commitment to equality is being undermined by competing claims to religious liberty. Advocates, politicians, and the media have all documented the “wave of religious-freedom bills” introduced in recent years, “almost all inspired by objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.” In the 2015-2016 legislative session, dozens of bills were introduced at the state and federal levels that would have created exemptions to otherwise generally applicable laws, including antidiscrimination protections, for persons whose sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with those laws. The most extreme version of these bills would allow religious objectors to engage in a wide range …

Trump’S Executive Order Barring Refugees Is Unconstitutional: Order Expresses A Religious Preference In Violation Of The Establishment Clause, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

NEW YORK, January, 30 2017 — Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project joins with thousands of lawyers, law professors, and legal organizations across the country in announcing that President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order writing a religious preference into U.S. policy is unconstitutional.

Church, State & The Trump Administration, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

President Donald Trump has repeatedly pledged to be a staunch defender of religious liberties. Nevertheless, his campaign promises, as well as statements made by him and his cabinet appointees, suggest that Trump holds a limited and deeply flawed understanding of religious freedom, among other constitutional rights and guarantees. While members of the new administration will act quickly and aggressively to advance certain conservative Christian religious tenets by limiting the rights of LGBTQ communities and curtailing access to reproductive health care, the President has promised to significantly restrain the rights of religious minorities by imposing a Muslim immigration ban, increase profiling …

Trump And Cabinet Nominees Seek To Restrict Muslim Rights, Break Down The Wall Between Church And State, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

A new document issued by the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School outlines the numerous areas in which the Trump administration will seek to advance particular conservative Christian tenets, restrict the rights of religious minorities, and break down the barrier between church and state. Enactment of the administration’s policy priorities would call into question the careful balance that currently exists between the First Amendment and other fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The report, entitled Church, State & the Trump Administration, highlights the ways in which the new administration’s early executive actions and cabinet nominations, as …

Why Some Religious Accommodations For Mandatory Vaccinations Violate The Establishment Clause, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

All states require parents to inoculate their children against deadly diseases prior to enrolling them in public schools, but the vast majority of states also allow parents to opt out on religious grounds. This religious accommodation imposes potentially grave costs on the children of non-vaccinating parents and on those who cannot be immunized. The Establishment Clause prohibits religious accommodations that impose such costs on third parties in some cases, but not in all. This presents a difficult line-drawing problem. The Supreme Court has offered little guidance, and scholars are divided.

This Article addresses the problem of religious accommodations that impose …

Adjudicating Religious Sincerity, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

Recent disputes about the “contraception mandate” under the Affordable Care Act and about the provision of goods and services for same-sex weddings have drawn attention to the law of religious accommodations. So far, however, one of the requirements of a religious accommodation claim has escaped sustained scholarly attention: a claimant must be sincere. Historically, scholars have contested this requirement on the ground that adjudicating religious sincerity requires government officials to delve too deeply into religious questions, something the Establishment Clause forbids. Until recently, however, the doctrine was fairly clear: though the government may not evaluate the objective accuracy or plausibility …

The Wholesale Exclusion Of Religion From Public Benefits Programs: Why The First Amendment Religion Clauses Must Take A Backseat To Equal Protection, Michael J. Borger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sex, Drugs, And Eagle Feathers: An Empirical Study Of Federal Religious Freedom Cases, Luke W. Goodrich

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents one of the first empirical studies of federal religious freedom cases since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hobby Lobby. Critics of Hobby Lobby predicted that it would open the floodgates to a host of novel claims, transforming “religious freedom” from a shield for protecting religious minorities into a sword for imposing Christian values in the areas of abortion, contraception, and gay rights.

Our study finds that this prediction is unsupported. Instead, we find that religious freedom cases remain scarce. Successful cases are even scarcer. Religious minorities remain significantly overrepresented in religious freedom cases; Christians remain significantly …

Religious Freedom And Recycled Tires: The Meaning And Implications Of Trinity Lutheran, Richard W. Garnett, Jackson C. Blais

Journal Articles

The Supreme Court's decision in Trinity Lutheran clearly affirmed a First Amendment rule against anti-religious discrimination. At the same time, it raised or left open a number of important and interesting questions about education reform, the relevance of anti-Catholic bias to states' so-called Blaine Amendments, and the sharpening tension between religious freedom and the application of antidiscrimination laws.

Constitutional Law: If These Walls Could Talk: Giving Undue Deference To Religious Actors By Expanding The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine—Pfeil V. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church Of Unaltered Augsburg Confession, Jeremy D.F. Krahn

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.