I understand completely why a large institution or company, with persons and property to protect, would want a security force on the premises and under its control. But ordinarily that is done through employees or private contractors, and the force is private. It does not have the power to arrest, or to detain for extended periods of time. So I repeat the question -- why would a megachurch (or a major corporation, re: operating its headquarters, which may also be much like a campus) want its police to have governmental authority? (This is a question quite separate from religious favoritism or entanglement between religious and civil authority).
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > The statute seems unconstitutional to me, likely based on > *Kiryas > Joel*. But the answer to the “why?” -- not that such a purpose would > necessarily make it constitutional -- might well be for the same reason > that many public school districts have their own police forces, though of > course this one would be much smaller. > > > > Eugene > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces@ > lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ira Lupu > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 12, 2017 8:19 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject:* Re: State-sanctioned church "police force" > > > > Why would a large, predominantly white suburban congregation near > Birmingham need its own police force? > > > > For a related religion clause case, see State v. Celmer, > http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme- > court/1979/80-n-j-405-0.html (invalidating on First A grounds "a > statutory scheme which grants various municipal powers to the Ocean Grove > Camp Meeting Association of The United Methodist Church.") > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Paul Horwitz <phorw...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Here's a story from the AP. What do you (or, to use the proper and > incredibly useful grammar of my adopted state, "y'all") think? Is it a > quasi-Grendel's Den case or something of the sort? A direct Establishment > Clause problem insofar as it involves granting governmental or > quasi-governmental status to a church itself? A Kiryas Joel-type case > insofar as it grants a governmental privilege or status that might or might > not be granted to, say, a mosque or some other organization? (Not that I'm > crazy about that aspect of the Kiryas Joel ruling.) Or, insofar as state > law allows the state to empower various entities to have police forces, is > it constitutional because respectful of equal access to governmental > benefits or privileges? > > > > Paul Horwitz > > University of Alabama School of Law > > > > MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) – The Alabama Senate has voted to allow a church to > form its own police force. > > Lawmakers on Tuesday voted 24-4 to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church in > Birmingham to establish a law enforcement department. > > The church says it needs its own police officers to keep its school as > well as its more than 4,000 person congregation safe. > > Critics of the bill argue that a police department that reports to church > officials could be used to cover up crimes. > > The state has given a few private universities the authority to have a > police force, but never a church or non-school entity. > > Police experts have said such a police department would be unprecedented > in the U.S. > > A similar bill is also scheduled to be debated in the House on Tuesday. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > > > -- > > Ira C. Lupu > F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H St., NW > Washington, DC 20052 > 301-928-9178 (mobile, preferred) > > 202-994-7053 (office) > > Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious > People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) > My SSRN papers are here: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 301-928-9178 (mobile, preferred) 202-994-7053 (office) Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
