Atheist's challenge to religion-only exemption to school uniform policy

2005-02-15 Thread Volokh, Eugene
The Third Circuit just denied an atheist's challenge to a
religion-only exemption to a school uniform policy, relying on
Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos.  Wilkins v. Penns Grove-Carneys
Point Regional School Dist., 2005 WL 348363 (3rd Cir. Feb. 14).  The
court notes the ongoing debate on this issue under the First Amendment.
Amos and other Supreme Court decisions approve of statutory religious
exemptions as an appropriate accommodation of free exercise. See Michael
W. McConnell, The Problem of Singling Out Religion, 50 DePaul L.Rev. 1,
5 (2000) (The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious
accommodations are constitutionally permissible.). But cf. William
Marshall, In Defense of Smith and Free Exercise Revisionism, 58 U. Chi.
L.Rev. 308, 320 (1991) (arguing religious exemptions are problematic
under the Establishment Clause).  It considers Amos dispositive,
though.
___
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.


Re: Atheist's challenge to religion-only exemption to school uniform policy

2005-02-15 Thread David Cruz

In this self-styled non-precedential opinion, the atheistic plaintiff, for
whatever reason, based her constitutional claim *only* on rational basis
review under the Equal Protection Clause (with Amos being dispositive of
the standard of equal protection review to apply to the religious
exemption).  She did not make an Establishment challenge, and thus the
discussion below is from the court's not[ing] of it in dictum in a
footnote.

David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

   The Third Circuit just denied an atheist's challenge to a
 religion-only exemption to a school uniform policy, relying on
 Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos.  Wilkins v. Penns Grove-Carneys
 Point Regional School Dist., 2005 WL 348363 (3rd Cir. Feb. 14).  The
 court notes the ongoing debate on this issue under the First Amendment.
 Amos and other Supreme Court decisions approve of statutory religious
 exemptions as an appropriate accommodation of free exercise. See Michael
 W. McConnell, The Problem of Singling Out Religion, 50 DePaul L.Rev. 1,
 5 (2000) (The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious
 accommodations are constitutionally permissible.). But cf. William
 Marshall, In Defense of Smith and Free Exercise Revisionism, 58 U. Chi.
 L.Rev. 308, 320 (1991) (arguing religious exemptions are problematic
 under the Establishment Clause).  It considers Amos dispositive,
 though.
 ___
 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.

___
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.