Religion Law Commons^™

Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Protection of "sacred sites" is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and therefore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one's ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general …

God And The Land: A Holy War Between Religious Exercise And Community Planning And Development, Patricia E. Salkin, Amy Lavine

Scholarly Works

This article is a brief introduction to The Albany Government Law Review symposium on God and the Land. This piece sets forth a brief history of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) setting the backdrop for the controversy that has surrounded the Act and its impact on religious entities and municipalities. Since the enactment of RLUIPA, the floodgates have burst open with litigation in attempts to clarify many ambiguities in the statute. The remainder of the piece provides a sneak preview of the articles contained in The Albany Government Law Review by Professors Angela Carmella, Marci Hamilton, …

Yellow Snow On Sacred Sites: A Failed Application Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Joshua A. Edwards

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tough Pill To Swallow: Whether Catholic Institutions Are Obligated Under Title Vii To Cover Their Employees’ Prescription Contraceptives, Craig W. Mandell

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

No abstract provided.

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 …

A Syllabus Of Errors, Douglas Laycock

Michigan Law Review

Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is probably unprecedented in the history of the world. It is inevitable that some of these diverse religious practices will violate some of these pervasive regulations, and equally inevitable that if we ask whether all these regulations are really necessary, sometimes the answer will be no. If we take free exercise of religion seriously, sometimes it will make sense to exempt sincere religious practices from generally applicable laws - but only some laws, and only some applications. Hardly anyone thinks that human sacrifice should be …

Establishment Clause Limits On Free Exercise Accommodations, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

Among the most vexing questions in the law of the religion clauses is when a legal measure that might otherwise be justified as an accommodation to free exercise is instead a forbidden establishment of religion. In a book about free exercise, I have provided some idea just how complex this question can be. I now tackle it head on. Scholars have fairly observed that the Supreme Court has given us no theory, or no tenable theory, for drawing the line between permissible accommodation and impermissible establishment. We will look at what the Court has said and done, as well as …

Vine Of The Dead: Reviving Equal Protection Rites For Religious Drug Use, David Garrett

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Free Exercise Of Religion And Public Schools: The Implications Of Hybrid Rights On The Religious Upbringing Of Children, Michael E. Lechliter

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that parents have a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution to direct the religious upbringing of their children and that courts interpreting Smith have systematically misunderstood and misapplied the Supreme Court's confusing hybrid rights language. Part I explains how Yoder and Smith create and preserve parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. The essential point is that the free exercise right and the parental right are not examined independently and simply added together, but instead are incorporated together to provide a specific bite to the free exercise claim. Part I also examines the lower …

City Of Boerne V. Flores Wrecks Rfra: Searching For Nuggets Among The Rubble, John Gatliff

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

To get right to the point: Mr. Hacker does not disagree that the Establishment Clause would, in the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment, have prohibited Congress from passing a nationwide religion law like RFRA. He believes, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment has in part repealed the First. Of course, he doesn't want to say repealed. The language of repeal is not pleasant to the ears of those who would like to forget about First Amendment antidisestablishmentarianism. The Fourteenth Amendment did not "repeal any aspect of the text of the [Establishment] Clause," Hacker says, but only "change[d] profoundly the meaning of …

A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker

Michigan Law Review

Professor Jed Rubenfeld has offered in these pages an ingenious explanation for why the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne v. Flores. Rubenfeld finds in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause a historical and inherent principle he calls "antidisestablishmentarianism": a prohibition on acts of Congress that "disestablish" religion in the several states. Rubenfeld reads the Establishment Clause as proscribing not only congressional acts that "establish" religion but also all congressional acts that "dictate a position on religion for states," including laws designed to ensure that states abide by the requirements …

Religious Law And Civil Law: Using Secular Law To Assure Observance Of Practices With Religious Significance, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

Civil law in the United States rarely helps to enforce religious standards or demands that people perform actions whose significance relates to religious obligations. Yet, some American states do have such involvement with certain observances of Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. Many states enforce kosher requirements, to which Orthodox and some Conservative Jews adhere. The laws, which penalize fraud in the labeling of products as kosher, serve the secular interest in preventing deception of consumers. However, the laws also force the state to decide when religious regulations have been violated.

Orthodox and Conservative Jewish divorces raise a second kind of involvement. …

The Long Road Towards Restoration Of Religious Freedom: Congressional Options In Light Of City Of Boerne V. Flores, J. Jeffrey Patterson

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Quo Vadis: The Status And Prospects Of Tests Under The Religion Clauses, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

As the 1994 term drew to a close, "tests" for the Religion Clauses were in nearly total disarray. Apart from cases of discrimination against religions, and disputes over church property, a student of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence could not formulate any general tests that a majority of the Justices clearly support. As exciting as this state of affairs is for those who welcome uncertainty and change, it is disquieting for lawyers and clients, for judges who must decide free exercise and establishment claims, and for Supreme Court Justices who aspire to stable principles of adjudication. In this essay, I provide …

Considering Religion As A Factor In Foster Care In The Aftermath Of Employment Division, Department Of Human Resources V. Smith And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Thomas J. Cunningham

University of Richmond Law Review

Most rights considered by Americans to be "fundamental" are granted a special level of protection by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The standard is often described as "strict scrutiny" or "compelling interest." Under this standard of protection, a state must have more than just a good reason for writing legislation that encroaches upon its citizens' fundamental rights. Rather, the state must be able to prove a "compelling" interest in achieving some desired result, a result which necessitates the curtailment of fundamental rights. In 1990, however, the United States Supreme Court substantially restricted a right from this list: …