I have a somewhat different take than Marty. My sense is that this is
denominational discrimination. If Colorado say had special reporting and
registration requirements, but only for pervasively sectarian schools like
CCU (but not for other religious schools), that would fall under
I think these dual-role cases are often difficult. Vis a vis the public, Webb
is the government, barred by the Establishment Clause from practicing religion.
But vis a vis her governmental employer, Webb is an individual, affirmatively
entitled with rights to practice religion under the Free
This is probably just piling on, given the direction of Professor Volokh's
post. But it does seem obvious that a state's reference to its own
constitution can't be used to help justify practices that would otherwise
violate the federal constitution. It would be absurd, given the Supremacy
work and which fail? What's the legal test they're supposed to be using?
Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher C. Lund Sent: Monday,
December 18, 2006 8:27 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject
accommodation for the person both as
plaintiff and as defendant. Steve On 12/15/06, Christopher C. Lund
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would have liked to see Judge Paruk do a
little more to accommodate religious exercise. I don't understand
why the Judge insists that demeanor evidence
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher
C. Lund Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:31 PM To: Law Religion issues
for Law Academics Subject: RE: Transcript in case dismissed because
plaintiff Muslim womanrefused to unveil to testify I think there is a
real question as to whether the rule here
I thought this paper was very interesting. It's basic point is that the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause are just negations of government power, and so logicallythey can never -- no matter how broadly they are interpreted -- conflict with each other. And I think, conceptually,that's
Pardon the Friday interruption, but can anyone recommend a scholarly work examiningJudeo-Christian arguments against polygamy?
Thanks in advance,
ChrisSearch from any Web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar Today! Try it now!
I'ma little curious as to why Trans World Airlines v. Hardison hasn't made anyone's list...
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:01:07 -0500From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduCC: Subject: RE: Trivial PursuitThere are more than twenty
Professor Lederman is making the same point he did in our discussion of Child Evangelism Fellowship in the Montgomery County Schools case --that there is never really a true public forum. http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2004-July/017117.html. There isn't one in the after-school club
"When the federal courts ask the question whether a state law satisfies RFRA, they violate principles of federalism -- even if the federal law recognizes the force of state law.Nelson's interpretationis an extraordinary circumvention of not only Boerne, but states' rights in general." I'm a
It's a little more complicated than district courts simply forgetting about Smith,isn't it? As a result of Boerne, RFRA now only modifies federal law and so it only applies to federal inmates (like Hammer) and not to state inmates (like Workman and Alley). But it's easy to see how courts get
I have no real question about the merits, but do have one about the remedy.
The relief in this suit runs not only against Iowa, but against InterChange itself on theground that "[p]rivate parties, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting under color of state law
Now is a good time to ask a question that has bothered me for awhile: Why _was_ there taxpayer standing in Mitchell v. Helms? I'm not talking about the executive/congressional distinction. I just don't know why thisdidn't fall under Valley Forge rather than Flast -- the case was about property
I can try. Let me admit at thefront end that I too think many of these programs will be held unconstitutional. But maybe I find these questions more difficult than you do.
As for (1) and (3), I don't think Mitchell and Bowen -and their general proscription of programs
Last week, we discussed the new immigration bill that will make it a felony
to assist an alien to remain in the United States. Religious and
secular humanitarian groups fear potential prosecution as a result of the
changes. Stuart Buck asked:
I dont know immigration law well enough to
Perhaps there is also a linkage between gay rights and religious liberty in
the sense that both are largely about identity. Precisely because religious
and sexual identity are not entirely immutable (although neither seems to be
wholly a matter of unconstrained choice), the government can
a good
deal of impact, at least until more cases are decided.
I briefly discuss these issues, including treatments by OLC and
Amar/Brownstein, here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/06/government-funding-of-religious.html
- Original Message -
From: Christopher C. Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED
Professor Lederman has brought up these cases where a religious organization
(usually the Boy Scouts) is given preferential access to a government forum
or other government benefit -- Evans, Winkler, Barnes-Wallace, etc. And I
think most will agree that the government cannot generally prefer
, but there it is. Is the BSA such an organization because of
its religious test? Probably not -- but it's not clear.
- Original Message -
From: Christopher C. Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: Boy Scouts, Expressive Association
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher C.
Lund
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:09 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Boy Scouts, Expressive Association, Government Benefits,
Religious Discrimination, Etc.
Professor
This is fascinating. We've talked before about the idea that these hidden
state-action issues -- about whether the First Amendment (or RLUIPA) could
be used against private developers attempting to enforce restrictive
covenants (analogizing to Shelley), or whether the First Amendment could
There is only a difference between methodological naturalism and ontological
naturalism if we are open to the possibility that there may be other methods
of inquiry (besides naturalism) that could potentially lead to truth.
Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science because it is a constrained
Where the class happens to fall in the course catalog, in one sense, does
seem completely irrelevant. But the reason why we have this fight is
because whether ID is taught as science or something else will determine
whether it is taught as true. If it's taught outside of science class, it
will
think?
Chris
From: Christopher C. Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: New Jersey Lawsuit
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:36:18 -0600
Yes, to the extent that this lawsuit is about using
Yes, to the extent that this lawsuit is about using the Establishment Clause
case to force the government to play religious music because it plays
secular music, it does seem doomed. Arguing that disestablishment itself
constitutes establishment -- which, btw, is I think what we have been
I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a question about the
content of the category of statements in between Doug's dashes -- claims
about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's
desires for humans. Those are the exclusively religious statements, out
The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design
next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies
class, and it's titled, Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design,
Creationism and other Religious Mythologies. (The chairman of the
If you don't mind me asking, how much consensus was there among the
Executive Committee regarding this resolution? Was there any dissent?
Chris Lund
From: Gregory S. Baylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Fresh off the presses...
*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***
Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design
Curriculum in PA School District
WHEN:
Tuesday, December 14, 1:00 p.m.
WHAT:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for
Separation of Church
I have a follow-up on Professor Koppelman's post -- questions about
Stevens opinion in Boerne and equal regard. To refresh, Stevens position
seems to be that any special accommodation of religious observance violates
the Establishment Clause. Giving special rights to religious people
Putting aside the Indiana Free Exercise Clause, aren't there some
serious problems here under the ordinary federal Free Exercise Clause as
well?
As an initial matter, the principal claims that [s]tudents are
allowed [only] five days of excused absences per semester and that
The Fourth Circuit today issued its decision in Child Evangelism
Fellowship v. Montgomery County -- a case that was apparently briefed by
almost everyone on this list. To get to the heart of it, the Fourth Circuit
sided with CEF and reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary
Assuming that religion is being singled out, I'm wondering if it's
necessarily the case that the restriction is violates the Free Exercise
Clause. The restriction seems to have the two saving criteria that the
restriction did in Locke -- it discriminates generally against all religions
I just wanted to respond to a minor point of Professor Cruz who
said:
Doug Laycock isn't right that there is something troublesome about such a
fusion of governmental and religious authority. I had previously thought
that perhaps allowing
clergy to perform the government's
Here is Professor Leiter's response to the NRO piece; he doesn't back
down an inch.
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/000950.html#000950
Chris
From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion
36 matches
Mail list logo
