Re: State RFRAs and their equivalents
Professor Laycock’s Illinois piece is available at the link below. His footnote
22 compiles 14 states that have “interpreted their state constitutions to
protect religiously motivated conduct even from generally applicable laws.”
http://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2014/3/Laycock.pdf
Thanks for the plug, Howard! Following today’s discussion, I added the above
link, and a list of the states he references, to the State RFRA Tracker I
maintain for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty -
http://bjconline.org/state-rfra-tracker-2015/
Don Byrd
http://bjconline.org/blog/
On Dec 5, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Friedman, Howard M. <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu>
wrote:
> There is also an excellent tracker for enacted and pending state RFRA's at
> Don Byrd's Blog from the Capital:
> http://bjconline.org/state-RFRA-tracker-2015/ It is kept updated. It does
> not however cover the state constitutional part.
>
> Howard Friedman
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
> on behalf of James Oleske [jole...@lclark.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 3:20 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: State RFRAs and their equivalents
>
> In addition to Doug's piece, this March 2014 post from Eugene has a map and
> comprehensive legend covering both RFRAs and state constitutional provisions
> that have been interpreted as providing exemption rights:
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/
>
> Mississippi, Indiana, and Arkansas have since adopted RFRAs. I don't know if
> any additional states have interpreted their constitutions to require
> exemptions since March 2014, but Washington State's Supreme Court will soon
> be hearing a case (the florist/same-sex marriage case) in which it will be
> called upon to apply the state's constitutional provision on religious
> freedom. Although Eugene has Washington listed in the constitutional "strict
> scrutiny" category, and although the Washington Supreme Court has continued
> to use "compelling interest"/"narrow means" language, it has also used
> "reasonableness" language, which has muddied the waters. See City of
> Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, 211 P.3d 406, 410 n.3
> (2009) ("Of course, the government may require compliance with reasonable
> police power regulation.").
>
> - Jim
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu>
> wrote:
> I collect these in my Illinois piece, in footnotes in the 20s. Indiana and
> Arkansas have been enacted since.
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:16:12 -0500
> Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is there a reliable, up-to-date list of state RFRAs and state
> >constitutional provisions that have, more or less, been construed to
> >incorporate Sherbert/Yoder? I know that many are compiled in Chris's 2010
> >article. Anything more recent?
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
> ___
> 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.
___
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: SG Kagan and Religious Liberty
Would love to see that memo please, or would appreciate even knowing which box carries it. Thanks so much! Don Byrd Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty Blog - Original Message - From: Christopher Lund ed9...@wayne.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:48:29 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: RE: SG Kagan and Religious Liberty I sent this earlier, but it bounced. I forgot that the listserv will not accept attachments. If you want a copy of Kagan's memo, just write me off-list. Best, Chris From: Christopher Lund [mailto:ed9...@wayne.edu] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:48 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: SG Kagan and Religious Liberty A NY Times article today offers some insight into how a Justice Kagan might view religion-related issues, suggesting she will support Free Exercise rights quite strongly. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12kagan.html?hp. She called it quite outrageous that a landlord be forced by California's anti-discrimination laws into renting an apartment to an unmarried couple over the landlord's religious objections. She recommended that the federal government write in support of the landlord's petition for certiorari-my understanding is that the federal government did not end up doing so. I tracked down and am attaching Kagan's memo to this email. The case was Smith v. Fair Employment Housing Comm., 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996), where the landlady was a Presbyterian who made her living renting out her four 1-bedroom apartments. The California Supreme Court disposed of the case by saying there wasn't a substantial burden on religious exercise within the meaning of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Kagan's memo dismisses that conclusion. The key language is this: The plurality's reasoning seems to me quite outrageous - almost as if a court were to hold that a state law does not impose a substantial burden on religion because the complainant is free to move to another state. That was a slight exaggeration of Smith's rationale, but not really much of one: The Court there did ground its holding in the fact that the landlady could sell her rental properties and thus avoid the burden on her religious exercise. But the slight exaggeration plus the apparent indignation maybe just reaffirms how Kagan takes a strong view of free exercise, even in one of its most contentious contexts. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 ___ 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.
Re: ACLJ's Jay Sekulow Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor on church stateseparation
All I have found is her dissent in Hankins v Lyght. Not much for Sekulow to hang his hat on there. I would think he would be glad for her clear embrace of the ministerial exception, even if she doesn't sound thrilled about the scope of RFRA as the majority framed it. Hardly supports his claim, in my opinion. http://www.bjconline.org/index.php? option=com_contenttask=viewid=2398Itemid=134 On May 7, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Marc Stern wrote: The unanimous 10 commandments case Sekulow refers to is obviously Summum--and that case by its very terms decided no Establishment Clause issue. Nothing like honest reporting. As to her opinions,is he possibly referring the Bronx Household of Prayer case (in either the Court of Appeals or the District Court) ?.I don't think she sat in the 2nd Circuits foray into Christmas observances in the public schools. Marc Stern From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of aa...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: ACLJ's Jay Sekulow Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor on church stateseparation I thought members of this list might be interested in an interview of the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow that ran on Fox News last Friday discussing possible replacements for Justice Souter with much of the time spent discussing Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Although Sekulow never mentioned any specific opinion or statement from Judge Sotomayor, he claimed that she is much further to the left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter. Sekulow also referred to winning a recent ten commandments case before the US Supreme Court with a 9-0 vote and said he thinks the vote would have been 8-1 if Judge Sotomayor were on the Court because she has a very, very strict view of church state separation. You can find the full 7 minute interview on the Fox News website at: http://tinyurl/JudgeSlam Or, if you forgive the self-promotion, you can see the relevant clips interspersed with critical commentary in my 4 minute 20 second YouTube video titled Fox News Slams Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court? at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZXZAjtXJ5s I thought it particularly appropriate to post my video to this list because I actually provide a link to one of my previous posts to this list in the video. See http://tinyurl.com/DishonestJay My question for the members of this list: Are there any specific opinions or statement from Judge Sotomayor that back up Jay Sekulow's characterization of her as much further to the left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter or of her having a very, very strict view of church state separation? Allen Asch Big savings on Dell's most popular laptops. Now starting at $449! ___ 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.
VA Lawsuit Settled: Wiccan Emblem Allowed
The VA now allows the Wiccan pentacle on grave markers in national cemetaries. The settlement was announced today. http://www.bjconline.org/cgi-bin/2007/04/lawsuit_with_military_settled.html ___ 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: Teenagers The Spirit of Liberty
So, can we expect this "protest" to become a tradition at this and other schools? And what will school officials do when muslim students decide to sing the call to prayer during the ceremony? Or when atheists decide they need to be heard? On what grounds will the school threaten to stifle any spontaneous speech _expression_ if they refuse to curtail this? it's not about religious _expression_, this incident, it's about schools having the right and responsibility to maintain discipline and order ton conduct their activities--the same reason that restricting a student from disrupting algebra class by standing up and reciting a prayer aloud isn't a violation of his constitutional rights.Surely, Rick, you don't suggest the school system begin condoning certain religious acts of protest but not others? I'm sure the school had policies and punishments in place to address this kind of disruption. They should not pick and choose when to apply those regulations based on their level of agreement with the religious speech in question. And, seriously, you think a school system should sanction a process in which a majority religion gets to elect a graduation "chaplain" for the purposes of giving the graduation prayer??As for how you restrict these kinds of activities, ask the valedictorian in Gallatin, TN... he insisted on being heard at his graduation ceremony, which did not allow for a valedictorian speech. He now faces disorderly conduct charges and is having his diploma withheld. Why is this case any different?http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060524/NEWS04/605240379On May 24, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Rick Duncan wrote:"This conflict isn't about "free speech" or even a 60-second prayer; it's about who gets to define what kind of nation we are." Charles HaynesFirst Amendment Center I agree with this insight. I don't think this issue is about the majority of students bullying a classmate as some have suggested. I think it is about students taking a stand against a particular view of America, a view that wishes to impose a strictly secular establishment in the schools. I guess they (the students who took a stand and their parents who applauded) would say that it is better for the people to define the role of religion in the schools than for the ACLU and federal courts to do so. I personally am not one who wishes to use public schools to impose religion on dissenters. But I am also strongly imposed to the public schools becoming an engine of secularization, a place where religious children need to wear a secular mask when taking part in school activities. Again, school choice is the solution to this problem of "defining" what kind of nation we are and what kind of schools we attend. It does not have to be either religious schools and prayer or secular schools and no prayer. It can be both. The one for those who value religion as a necessary part of the education of children; and the other for those who don't. But if we have a government school monopoly, and if someone tries to impose a strictly secular environment within that monopoly, then I will applaud students who stand up and say "we will not be silenced; we are going to participate in defining what kind of nation we are." These kids are heroes in my book. Their parents should be proud of them. Rick Duncan Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt God's existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start doubting His existence." --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of Conscience) "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion of the best is the worst." -- Id. Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
