Religion Law Commons^™

Interpreting Religious Doctrine: The Third Rail That Wags The Dog In Religion Clause Jurisprudence, Samuel J. Levine

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article is part of a broader project exploring and assessing the United States Supreme Court’s hands-off approach to interpreting religious doctrine. The mixed metaphor that constitutes the title of this Article incorporates various aspects of the project’s interrelated themes and claims. First, as a descriptive matter, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and increasingly refused to adjudicate issues that require the interpretation, evaluation, and resolution of substantive areas of religious practice and belief. Thus, like the third rail of train tracks, interpreting religious doctrine is deemed off-limits and better left untouched. Indeed, the Court’s justifications for the hands-off approach rely …

Defining Religion And Accommodating Religious Exercise, Justin Collings, Anna Bryner

Indiana Law Journal

It is a volatile time in the jurisprudence of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. In recent terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has revisited many key Church-State and free exercise questions, and the Justices seem poised to revisit several more. Each of these fundamental questions presupposes an antecedent question: what, for constitutional purposes, is religion itself? The Court has never answered this question consistently or systematically. But, at least in the case of constitutionally mandated religious exemptions, a clear pattern emerges over time: the broader the Court’s definition of religion, the weaker its regime of religious exemptions. The reverse has also …

Covid-19, Free Exercise, And Most Favored Nation Status, Mark Strasser

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Commentators and some Justices suggest that religious activity is accorded a kind of Most Favored Nation status under free exercise guarantees—if a statutory exception is made for a relevantly similar secular activity, then an exception must also be made for religious activity. Such an approach would require a careful consideration of which secular activities were relevantly similar to religious activities to warrant protecting the latter. But the Most Favored Nation approach involves a mischaracterization of the past jurisprudence. Further, as is evidenced in the COVID cases, the U.S. Supreme Court does not engage in a nuanced consideration of which activities …

Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan

Pepperdine Law Review

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …

Reclaiming Establishment: Identity And The 'Religious Equality Problem', Faraz Sanei

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Since at least 2017, the Court has implicitly recognized a right of equal access to generally available public benefits based on the beneficiary’s religious identity or status. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court went a step further and, for the first time, concluded that the “statususe distinction lacks a meaningful application” in both theory and practice. It then held that restrictions on the use of public benefits for sacral purposes amount to religious discrimination because they impose substantial burdens on free exercise rights. Carson’s holding, and the rationale underlying it, contravene settled case law and effectively gut the Establishment …

What Is Caesar's, What Is God's: Fundamental Public Policy For Churches, Lloyd Histoshi Mayer, Zachary B. Pohlman

Journal Articles

Bob Jones University v. United States is both a highly debated Supreme Court decision and a rarely applied one. Its recognition of a contrary to fundamental public policy doctrine that could cause an otherwise tax-exempt organization to lose its favorable federal tax status remains highly controversial, although the Court has shown no inclination to revisit the case and Congress has shown no desire to change the underlying statutes to alter the case’s result. That lack of action may be in part because the IRS applies the decision in relatively rare and narrow circumstances.
/="/">
/="/">The mention of the decision …

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Trinity Lutheran, And Trumpism: Codifying Fiction With Administrative Gaslighting, Robin S. Maril

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

This article addresses the Trump administration’s consistent misinterpretation and misapplication of legal precedent to support unnecessary religious exemptions that exceed Constitutional mandates and impair the rights of third parties to access federal services and programs. Proponents of this routinized repeal of civil rights protections argue that the Trump administration is merely restoring the correct balance of religious liberties in the federal government. However, the regulations and policies included in this campaign unconstitutionally broaden the already robust religious protections provided by statutes and court decisions and have the effect of dismantling the civil rights infrastructure of the past 50 years.

Despite …

Legal Scholars & Theologians Partner On An Ambitious Vision For Religious Liberty, Elizabeth Reiner Platt

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Oct. 6, 2020—To safeguard the right to religious freedom, the next presidential administration must end the hyper-surveillance of Muslims, welcome religious refugees, protect land sacred to Native communities, restore church-state separation, and withdraw policies that favor particular religious beliefs, argues a new report co-authored by the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia University (LRRP) and Auburn Seminary.

The Law Of The Eruv, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Describes case law governing municipal regulation of the eruv (an artificial enclosure designed to allow observant Jews to carry on the Jewish Sabbath). The article focuses on First Amendment case law, and concludes that a municipality may prohibit eruvin only pursuant to a regulation that is enforced against comparable secular signs.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars In Support Of Equality In Support Of Respondents, Fulton V. City Of Philadelpha, Kyle Velte, David Cruz, Michael Higdon, Anthony Michael Kreis, Shirley Lin, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

This Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars in Support of Equality in Support of Respondents filed in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia addresses the propriety of an analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation cases involving sexual orientation discrimination. The race analogy in sexual orientation cases proceeds as follows: Advocates and judges widely agree that courts should, and would, reject a religious exemption claim by a public accommodation—such a foster care agency—seeking to turn away an African-American or interracial couple based on the public accommodation’s religious beliefs that Blacks are inferior to whites or that the races should not mix. …

A Close Reading Of Barnette, In Honor Of Vincent Blasi, Paul Horwitz

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fighting The New Wars Of Religion: The Need For A Tolerant First Amendment, Leslie C. Griffin

Maine Law Review

Religious wars have broken out around the country about the legality of gay marriage, the consequences of gay ordination for property ownership, the funding of faith-based organizations and the placement of crosses and Ten Commandments (but not Seven Aphorisms) on public land. To resolve such impassioned disputes, Americans traditionally look to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Unfortunately, the Court's modern decisions interpreting those clauses have shed more heat than light on the discussion and have provoked ongoing controversy instead of …

Memorandum, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This legal Memorandum on the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and written by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The Memorandum is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

4 p.

"The legislative history primarily identifies two issues that SB08-200 was designed to resolve: (1) the need for dignity and access to justice for LGBT people and …

Master File, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This Master File of the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and compiled by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The SB08-200 Master File is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

449 p.

To Repeal Or Not Repeal: The Johnson Amendment, Mark Goldfeder, Michelle K. Terry

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

To Accommodate Or Not To Accommodate: (When) Should The State Regulate Religion To Protect The Rights Of Children And Third Parties?, Hillel Y. Levin, Allan J. Jacobs, Kavita Shah Arora

Washington and Lee Law Review

When should we accommodate religious practices? When should we demand that religious groups instead conform to social or legal norms? Who should make these decisions, and how? These questions lie at the very heart of our contemporary debates in the field of Law and Religion.

Particularly thorny issues arise where religious practices may impose health-related harm to children within a religious group or to third parties. Unfortunately, legislators, courts, scholars, ethicists, and medical practitioners have not offered a consistent way to analyze such cases, so the law is inconsistent. This Article suggests, first, that the lack of consistency is a …

The Supreme Court And Religious Liberty, Joseph D. Kearney

Marquette Law Review

None

Religious Accommodations And – And Among – Civil Rights: Separation, Toleration, And Accommodation, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper expands on a presentation at a recent conference, held at Harvard Law School, on the topic of “Religious Accommodations in the Age of Civil Rights.” In it, I emphasize that the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in …

The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent work, Steven Smith argues that the American tradition of religious freedom is newly imperiled and may even be nearing exhaustion. This Review puts to one side the substance of that argument and focuses instead on what the stakes might be, should it turn out to be correct. It concludes that the consequences would not be as severe as many people fear.

Telescoping And Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

If courts are willing to expand religious liberty so that people may be allowed to choose-on the basis of their own religious beliefs-whether certain laws will apply to non-religious entities they create, those courts should take that step very carefully. This Paper explores the issue and pro- ceeds as follows. Part I discusses three recent Supreme Court cases that il- luminate the telescoping and the collectivization of free exercise rights. Part II considers problems that accompany telescoping and collectivizing free exercise rights. Part III suggests how courts should critically evaluate the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights. This Paper …

Exclusion And Equality: How Exclusion From The Political Process Renders Religious Liberty Unequal, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Exclusion from the political process is a central question in American law. Thus far, however, it has not been recognized how religious Americans are excluded from the political process and what this means for religious equality.

Put simply, both administrative lawmaking and § 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code substantially exclude religious Americans from the political process that produces laws. As a result, apparently equal laws are apt, in reality, to be unequal for religious Americans. Political exclusion threatens religious equality.

The primary practical conclusion concerns administrative law. It will be seen that this sort of "law" is made …

The Problems Inherent In Litigating Employer Free Exercise Rights, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This brief Article proceeds in four parts. Part I discusses the Supreme Court's recent cases that address employer free exercise rights. Part II notes problems that accompany providing free exercise rights to employers. Part III explores the expansion of employer prerogative in the context of providing employers additional free exercise rights. Part IV considers problems that arise when employee rights are not deemed central to litigation regarding employer free exercise rights. The Article concludes by proposing a refraining of the free exercise issue that will consider how to account for the interests of the employer, its stakeholders, and its employees …

Learning Lessons From Multani: Considering Canada's Response To Religious Garb Issues In Public Schools, Allison N. Crawford

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Commercial Religious Exercise: Translating Commercial Speech Doctrine To The Free Exercise Clause, Danieli Evans

Articles

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulations require for-profit businesses with more than fifty employees to include contraceptive products in their health care coverage for employees. Throughout the country, privately held corporations and their owners challenged this requirement on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which states that the government shall not “substantially burden” a religious practice unless the regulation is “the least restrictive means” of serving a “compelling governmental interest.” The employers argued that requiring them to include contraceptives in employees’ health coverage substantially burdened their religious opposition to using certain …

Corporations, Taxes, And Religion: The Hobby Lobby And Conestoga Contraceptive Cases, Steven J. Willis

UF Law Faculty Publications

Beginning in 2013, the federal government mandated that general business corporations include contraceptive and early abortion coverage in large employee health plans. Internal Revenue Code Section 4980D imposes a substantial excise tax on health plans violating the mandate. Indeed, for one company – Hobby Lobby – the expected annual tax is nearly one-half billion dollars. Dozens of “for profit” businesses have challenged the mandate on free exercise grounds, asserting claims under the First Amendment as well as under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

So far, courts have been reluctant to hold corporations have religious rights of their own; as a …

The First Amendment: Religious Freedom For All, Including Muslims, Asma Uddin

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Heffron V. International Society For Krishna Consciousness Inc.: A Restrictive Constitutional View Of The Proselytizing Rights Of Religious Organizations , Michael M. Greenburg

Pepperdine Law Review

The persistent efforts of religious organizations to reach their public have consistently been met with governmental limitation due to the often conflicting interests of public order, and free speech and expression. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. represents the Court's latest redefinition of the extent of permissible limitations upon the activities of these groups. The author examines the decision in light of the traditional criteria for permissible time, place, and manner restrictions upon free speech and evaluates the Court's implementation of these restrictions with respect to the activities of the Krishna group. The impact of the decision upon …

A New Standard Of Review In Free Exercise Cases: Thomas V. Review Board Of The Indiana Employment & Security Division, Lynn Mccutchen Gardner

Pepperdine Law Review

In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Court was called upon to clarify the appropriate level of review to be applied in cases which examine the first amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Court ruled that the "compelling state interest" test is the proper standard to be used. The Court also accorded first amendment protection to beliefs which are not shared by other members of a religious group and which are instead the unique interpretation of an individual member and not acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others.

Public Policy Against Religion: Doubting Thomas , Richard H. Seeburger

Pepperdine Law Review

In free exercise cases, the Supreme Court has adopted a least restrictive alternative test in an attempt to maximize protection for religiously motivated practices. Because the least restrictive alternative test only considers the importance of the governmental interest and the availability of alternative means to accomplish those interests, thereby ignoring the importance of the burdened religious activity to the individual and the degree of burden on religious activity, all religious interests are treated equally when asserted against a governmental interest. Under such an inflexible and brittle test, the Supreme Court has recently denied religious claims which had previously been recognized. …

Defining Religion Down: Hasanna-Tabor, Martinez, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

While two recent Supreme Court cases on religious freedom appear sharply at odds, in one material respect they harmonize around an understanding that religion is fully protected only when exercised in private. CLS v. Martinez involved Hastings College of Law. Hastings' regulation of extracurricular organizations was unusual in requiring that any student can join an organization. This all-comers rule had a discriminatory impact on organizations with exclusionary memberships, such as the Christian Legal Society (CLS) which required subscribing to a statement of faith and conduct. The Court acknowledged the discriminatory effect, but said that the Free Speech Clause protects speech …