Religion Law Commons^™

Antidiscrimination And Tax Exemption, Alex Zhang

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court held, in Bob Jones University v. United States, that violations of fundamental public policy— including race discrimination in education—disqualify an entity for tax exemption. The holding of the case was broad, and its results cohered with the ideals of progressive society: the government ought not to subsidize discrimination, particularly of marginalized groups. But almost four decades later, the decision has never realized its antidiscriminatory potential. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has limited implementation to the narrowest facts of the case. The scholarly literature has not formulated a systematic account of how to enforce the Bob Jones …

Back To The Sources? What’S Clear And Not So Clear About The Original Intent Of The First Amendment, John Witte Jr.

Faculty Articles

This Article peels through these layers of founding documents before exploring the final sixteen words of the First Amendment religion clauses. Part I explores the founding generation’s main teachings on religious freedom, identifying the major principles that they held in common. Part II sets out a few representative state constitutional provisions on religious freedom created from 1776 to 1784. Part III reviews briefly the actions by the Continental Congress on religion and religious freedom issued between 1774 and 1789. Part IV touches on the deprecated place of religious freedom in the drafting of the 1787 United States Constitution. Part V …

The Supreme Court’S Hands-Off Approach To Religious Questions In The Era Of Covid-19 And Beyond, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Defining “Substantial Burdens” On Religion And Other Liberties, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to restore free exercise exemptions from neutral laws that burden religion. But pivotal Justices have asked how to narrow religious exemptions. This Article proposes answers with wide-ranging implications for the future—and limits—of free exercise, and for the doctrine on other liberties.

To date, courts applying exemptions from “substantial burdens” on religion have tended to narrow protections to the detriment of religious minorities. But many fear that expanding exemptions would over-protect Christians in culture-war cases.

Striking a balance will require a sound definition of “substantial burdens.” But the current, strongly pro-religion Court will not impose …

Las Medidas De “Acomodación” De La Religión En El Derecho Estadounidense [Accommodation Of Religion In U.S. Law], Michael W. Mcconnell, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

En este trabajo se analizan las medidas de acomodación de la religión, que gozan de una gran tradición en el derecho constitucional de los Estados Unidos, así como los debates que han generado desde el punto de vista de su conformidad con las cláusulas de la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos: la cláusula de no establecimiento de una religión oficial y la cláusula de libre ejercicio de la religión. A lo largo del trabajo se analiza la principal jurisprudencia recaída sobre las medidas de acomodación y los test que se han construido para enjuiciarlas.

[This paper …

Obergefell, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Fulton, And Public-Private Partnerships: Unleashing V. Harnessing "Armies Of Compassion" 2.0?, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia presented a by-now familiar constitutional claim: recognizing civil marriage equality—the right of persons to marry regardless of gender—inevitably and sharply conflicts with the religious liberty of persons and religious institutions who sincerely believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. While the Supreme Court’s 9-0 unanimous judgment in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) surprised Court-watchers, Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion did not signal consensus on the Court over how best to resolve the evident conflicts raised by the contract between CSS and the City of Philadelphia. This article argues that it …

Taking Justification Seriously: Proportionality, Strict Scrutiny, And The Substance Of Religious Liberty, Stephanie H. Barclay, Justin Collings

Journal Articles

Last term, five Justices on the Supreme Court flirted with the possibility of revisiting the Court’s First Amendment test for when governments must provide an exemption to a religious objector. But Justice Barrett raised an obvious, yet all-important question: If the received test were to be revised, what new test should take its place? The competing interests behind this question have be-come even more acute in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a moment rife with lofty rhetoric about religious liberty but riven by fierce debates about what it means in practice, this Article revisits a fundamental question common to …

Covid-19, Churches, And Culture Wars, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause often requires courts to balance competing interests of the highest order. On the one hand, the Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion as a fundamental right. On the other hand, the government sometimes has compelling reasons for limiting free exercise, especially in situations involving dangers to health and safety. The shutdown and social distancing orders issued during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic not only restricted free exercise but also limited what many people consider to be the core of that exercise: religious worship. But the orders did so in order to …

Special Matters: Filtering Privileged Materials In Federal Prosecutions, Christina Frohock

Articles

This Article reviews the U.S. Department of Justice's toolbox for handling potentially privileged materials, with close attention to the evolution from filter teams to the Special Matters Unit in fraud prosecutions. Significant case opinions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits reveal the judiciary's diverse views on filter teams. The recent case of United States v. Esformes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, illustrates how a filter team can fall short and draw unflattering attention to the Department of Justice. In the …

Lgbtqia+ Public Accomodation Cases: The Battle Between Religious Freedom And Civil Rights, Jamie Reinah

Fordham Law Review

Protections for LGBTQIA+ Americans have greatly expanded since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, but the debate about whether business owners can refuse to serve LGBTQIA+ couples on religious grounds has grown more bitterly divided. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental constitutional right, and it is strongly protected at both the federal and state levels. At the same time, LGBTQIA+ couples are protected from receiving unequal treatment in public places under state antidiscrimination laws. The clash between religion and LGBTQIA+ rights has culminated in a line of cases that present difficult questions …

Does The Ministerial Exception Protect A Minister's Humiliating Comments?, Yiting Feng

SLU Law Journal Online

The Seventh Circuit case of Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish applied the ministerial exception to bar a fired minister’s claim of a hostile work environment. In this article, Yiting Feng lists the reason why she disagrees with the majority opinion and leans towards the dissenting opinion.

A Case Against School Choice: Carson Ex Rel. O.C. V. Makin And The Future Of Maine's Nonsectarian Requirement, Blake E. Mccartney

Maine Law Review

School choice advocates, such as the nonprofit libertarian law firm, The Institute for Justice, have spent decades arguing that states violate the Free Exercise Clause when they exclude private religious schools from public programs that otherwise provide public dollars to non-religious private schools. Recently, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Supreme Court effectively agreed with that sentiment. After this victory, the Institute for Justice returned to the state of Maine to represent three sets of parents in a renewed effort to defeat Maine’s nonsectarian requirement in federal court. Maine’s nonsectarian requirement provides that private religious schools may not …

Defending A Religious Institution Using The Charitable Immunity And Ecclesiastical Doctrine Defenses To Tort Liability, Michael M. Harrison

Arkansas Law Notes

Defense attorneys in Arkansas are, not infrequently, called upon to defend religious institutions from tort suits brought against them for a variety of reasons. Such claims may arise out of a motor vehicle accident involving a church bus, a slip and fall accident on church premises, a claim of sexual molestation on the part of a church employee, or another type of claim. In defending claims against religious institutions, it is imperative that the defense of charitable immunity and, where applicable, the Ecclesiastical doctrine, be raised in the first responsive pleading to the Complaint, be that an Answer and/or a …

The Constitution, Covid-19, And Civil Disobedience: Federalism In Flames And The Slippery Slope To Socialism, Savannah Snyder

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

Our Constitution has been devastatingly corrupted from its original design and vision amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Governors usurped authority in the name of crisis mitigation. Our unalienable rights have been macerated and pulverized by droves of executive orders, each delivering a calamitous blow to the integrity of the American republican framework. Socialized medicine is on the horizon as our compliance is coerced. Conventional civil disobedience has been regulatorily revoked. We have succumbed to the decrees of depraved men who maintain that education, religious expression, and pursuits of happiness can be invalidated by whatever transgressions the state deems necessary. For the …

Incidental Burdens On First Amendment Freedoms, Charles F. Capps

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Supreme Court is currently reconsidering the question when, if ever, the Free Exercise Clause requires exemptions to neutral laws of general applicability. This Essay proposes an answer that is based on the idea—which this Essay labels the “Principle of Consistency”—that the First Amendment requires comparable levels of protection for speech and religious exercise. Other scholars applying the Principle of Consistency have discussed the implications of United States v. O’Brien, which prescribed intermediate scrutiny for incidental burdens on speech, for the problem of exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause. But no one has discussed the implications of two lines …

Let’S Go To The Beach: Gender Segregation As A Tool To Accommodate Religious Minorities, Sarah Gibbons

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Kū Kia‘I Mauna: Protecting Indigenous Religious Rights, Joshua Rosenberg

Washington Law Review

Courts historically side with private interests at the expense of Indigenous religious rights. Continuing this trend, the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court allowed the Thirty- Meter-Telescope to be built atop Maunakea, a mountain sacred to Native Hawaiians. This decision led to a mass protest that was organized by Native Hawaiian rights advocates and community members. However, notwithstanding the mountain’s religious and cultural significance, Indigenous plaintiffs could not prevent construction of the telescope on Maunakea.

Unlike most First Amendment rights, religious Free Exercise Clause claims are not generally subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Congress has mandated the application of strict scrutiny to …

Sex Offenders And The Free Exercise Of Religion, Christopher C. Lund

Notre Dame Law Review

In a variety of ways, sex offenders in the United States find themselves in a difficult position. One of the lesser-known ways relates to the free exercise of religion. Sometimes by categorical statute, and sometimes by individualized parole, probation, or supervised-release condition, sex offenders can find themselves legally barred from places where children are present (or likely to be present). Because children are usually present at religious services, sex offenders can find themselves unable to attend them altogether. And this hardship has a bit of irony in it too. Back in prison, sex offenders could worship freely with others; now …

Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley

University of Richmond Law Review

In its 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious exemptions from general laws that incidentally burdened religious practice. Sherbert, in theory, provided stringent protections for religious freedom. But those protections came at a price. Religious adherents could secure exemptions even if they had no evidence the laws they challenged unfairly targeted their religious conduct. And they could thereby undermine the policy objectives those laws sought to achieve. Because of such policy concerns, the Court progressively restricted the availability of religious exemptions. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith …

Sex Offenders And The Free Exercise Of Religion, Christopher C. Lund

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The Virginia Company To Chick-Fil-A: Christian Business In America, 1600–2000, Joseph P. Slaughter

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is one of its most controversial in recent history. Burwell’s narrow 5–4 ruling states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely held, for-profit corporations seeking religious exemptions to the Affordable Care Act. As a result, the Burwell decision thrust Hobby Lobby, the national craft chain established by the conservative evangelical Green family of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, onto the national stage. Firms like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, however, reject the conventional wisdom Justice Ginsburg explained in Burwell and instead embrace an approach to business with …

Corporate Entanglement With Religion And The Suppression Of Expression, Ronald J. Colombo

Seattle University Law Review

The power and ability of corporations to assert their First Amendment rights to the detriment of others remains both a controversial and unresolved issue. Adverting to relevant strands of existing jurisprudence and certain constitutionally relevant factors, this Article suggests a solution. The path turns upon the recognition that whereas some corporations are appropriately categorized as rights-bearing entities (akin to associations), others are more appropriately categorized as “entities against which the rights of individuals can be asserted.” Legislation, in the form of the draft “CENSOR” Act, is provided as a means by which to implement this categorization. What hopefully emerges is …

God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions For Parsonages Yesterday, Today, And (If Constitutional) Tomorrow, Samuel D. Brunson

Indiana Law Journal

In 2019, the Seventh Circuit decided an Establishment Clause question that had been percolating through the courts for two decades. It held that the parsonage allowance, which permits “ministers of the gospel” to receive an untaxed housing allowance, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It grounded its conclusion in part on the “historical significance” test the Supreme Court established in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

In coming to that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited a 200-year unbroken history of property tax exemptions for religious property. According to the Seventh Circuit, that history demonstrated that both …

In Search Of An Established Church, Teresa M. Bejan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Legal Ramifications Of Christian Nationalism, Steven K. Green

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Fish—Why Are You Still Picking On Liberalism?, Micah Schwartzman

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions For Parsonages Yesterday, Today, And (If Constitutional) Tomorrow, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In 2019, the Seventh Circuit decided an Establishment Clause question that had been percolating through the courts for two decades. It held that the parsonage allowance, which permits “ministers of the gospel” to receive an untaxed housing allowance, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It grounded its conclusion in part on the “historical significance” test the Supreme Court established in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

In coming to that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited a 200-year unbroken history of property tax exemptions for religious property. According to the Seventh Circuit, that history demonstrated that both …