Law Commons^™

The Religious Freedom Waltz: Going Forward While Moving Back, Audra L. Savage

ConLawNOW

Although religious freedom has the distinction as the “first freedom,” it is not first in terms of protected rights. Religious freedom is under attack and if not shielded from potential threats, this quintessential American right may be lost altogether. Or at least, this is what U.S. law professors Andrew Koppelman and Steven D. Smith would have one believe, according to books each professor recently published. Unfortunately, they are not exaggerating. Volumes of articles and tomes have been written questioning, critiquing and criticizing (and lamenting, blasting and ridiculing) the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicating the religion clauses of the …

Comments Submitted To The Department Of Health And Human Services Regarding Religious Exemptions To Contraceptive Coverage, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Following the Supreme Court's decision to vacate and remand the cases in Zubik v. Burwell, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a request for information on alternative ways to accommodate religious nonprofits from compliance with the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), CMS-9931-NC. The following comment, from the Law, Rights, and Religion Project, explains that the ACA's existing religious accommodation complies with federal law, and that expanding the accommodation in a way that harms employees and their families would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Further, this comment highlights the effects an …

Conscience Protection And Discrimination In The Republican Party Platform And Mississippi's H.B. 1523, Religious Freedom Institute, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Last May, before the Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges,Cornerstone sponsored a symposium on “Responding to Indiana RFRA and Beyond,” which focused on Governor Mike Pence’s swift “fix” of Indiana’s RFRA, after protests and threats of boycotts, to clarify that it would “not create a license to discriminate.” Particularly controversial were provisions protecting the conscience of persons operating for-profit businesses. In that symposium, I observed that public discourse frequently referred back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because “many people relate the current battle over protecting conscience in the context of …

Exceptionalism Unbound: Appraising American Resistance To Foreign Law, Mark C. Rahdert

Catholic University Law Review

In a statewide referendum, voters approved a change to the Oklahoma state constitution, adopting restrictions on state judges’ ability to use of foreign law. Dubbed the “Save Our State” (“SOS”) Amendment, the measure forbade Oklahoma state judges from considering or using international or foreign law, except where required to do so by federal statutes or treaties. The SOS Amendment particularly prohibited the use of Sharia law. Similar measures (usually without specific references to Sharia law) have been proposed or adopted elsewhere.

These Amendments, as well as other developments in American politics, reflect a vigorous new strain of a deep-seated tendency …

A Critique Of Hobby Lobby And The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religion, Samuel J. Levine

Samuel J. Levine

Over the past several decades, the United States Supreme Court has demonstrated an increasing refusal to engage in a close evaluation of the religious nature of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims, instead deferring to adherents’ characterizations of the substance and significance of a religious practice or belief. The Supreme Court’s hands-off approach, which it has justified on both constitutional and practical grounds, has attracted considerable scholarly attention, producing a substantial and growing body of literature assessing and, at times, critiquing the Court’s approach.

Part I of this Essay provides a brief overview for analyzing the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach …

A Critique Of Hobby Lobby And The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Religion, Samuel J. Levine

Samuel J. Levine

Over the past several decades, the United States Supreme Court has demonstrated an increasing refusal to engage in a close evaluation of the religious nature of Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims, instead deferring to adherents’ characterizations of the substance and significance of a religious practice or belief. The Supreme Court’s hands-off approach, which it has justified on both constitutional and practical grounds, has attracted considerable scholarly attention, producing a substantial and growing body of literature assessing and, at times, critiquing the Court’s approach.Part I of this Essay provides a brief overview for analyzing the Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to …

Hopeful Clarity Or Hopeless Disarray?: An Examination Of Town Of Greece V. Galloway And The Establishment Clause, Krista M. Pikus

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this article notes that the current state of this area of law is in hopeless disarray and argues that the Court should resolve this confusion by employing a few proposed solutions. The article begins by reviewing and analyzing the confusion surrounding modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The article then discusses what interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be controlling: strict-separationism, nonpreferentialism, enhanced federalism, or the incorporation doctrine. Next, the article details what is wrong with modern establishment clause jurisprudence, namely, the Court’s inconsistent application of different tests to assess government action under the …

The Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Religious Club’S Right To Meet On Public School Premises: Is This “Good News” For First Amendment Rights, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief For Amici Curiae Church-State Scholars In Support Of Respondents In Zubik V. Burwell, Elizabeth Boylan

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

The Law, Rights, and Religion Project assisted the Counsel for Church-State Scholars in the preparation of an amicus brief submitted in the Supreme Court of the United States case of David A. Zubik, et al., v. Sylvia Burwell, et al.

Taxing Utopia, Samuel Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Nineteenth-century American religious movements challenged many aspects of American society. Although their challenges to mainstream America's vision of sex and marriage remain the best-known aspects of many of these groups, their challenges to traditional American economics are just as important. Eschewing individual ownership of property, many of these new Christian movements followed the New Testament model of a body of believers that held all property in common.

In the early twentieth century, these religious communal groups had to contend with something new: an income tax. Communalism did not fit into the individualistic economic system envisioned b-y the drafters of the …

Testimony Regarding The First Amendment Defense Act (Fada), Katherine M. Franke, Elizabeth A. Sepper, Ariela Gross, Sylvia A. Law, Martin S. Flaherty, Suzanne B. Goldberg, Carol Sanger, J. Stephen Clark, Florens Wagman Roisman, Gregory Magarian, Caroline Mala Corbin, Nomi Stolzenberg, Carlos A. Ball, Aaron Ezra Waldman, Aziza Ahmed, Jennifer A. Drobac, Deborah Widiss, Arthur S. Leonard, Martha M. Ertman

Faculty Scholarship

My testimony today is delivered on behalf of twenty leading legal scholars who have joined me in providing an in depth analysis of the meaning and likely effects of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), were it to become law. We feel particularly compelled to provide testimony to this Committee because the first legislative finding set out in FADA declares that: “Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be addressed through legislation.” As leading legal scholars we must correct this statement: we do not concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and …

Testimony On Pennsylvania Sb1306: No Additional Protections For Religious Freedom, Katherine M. Franke, Burton Caine, Lenore F. Carpenter, Eric A. Feldman, Thersa Glennon, Nancy J. Knauer, Jules Lobel, Wendell Pritchett, Dara E. Purvis, Brishen Rogers, Victor C. Romero, Kathryn M. Stanchi, Nancy A. Welsh

Faculty Scholarship

On behalf of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School I offer the following legal analysis of Senate Bill 1306. Overall, the current version of the bill promises to modernize Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act by expanding antidiscrimination protections in employment to include sexual orientation and gender identity-based discrimination. Were the Pennsylvania legislature to pass SB 1306, the Commonwealth would join twenty-two states that include sexual orientation and nineteen states that include gender identity in their laws assuring equal employment opportunities for their citizens.

Memorandum On Mississippi House Bill 1523, Katherine M. Franke, Michèle Alexandre, Deborah A. Challener, Judith J. Johnson, Richard Gershon, Elizabeth A. Sepper, Noa Ben-Asher, Daria Roithmayr, Nomi M. Stolzenberg

Faculty Scholarship

As legal scholars with expertise in matters of religious freedom, civil rights, and the interaction between those fields, we offer our opinion on the scope and meaning of Mississippi House Bill 1523, which was signed into law today by Governor Phil Bryant. Specifically, we wish to call attention to language in the law that we believe conflicts with the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We share the view of Justice Kennedy when he expressed that “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” and would add that neither can …