work of Hamburger, McGreevy, and many others. And, I believe
that the Court was too quick to dismiss it.
All that said, thanks to Marty for calling me on this
point.
best,
Rick Garnett
At 01:06 AM 2/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:
It's
great to see Professor Garnett contributing to the list on Davey
Perry likes to put it, the
incorporation of the Establishment Clause has become bedrock. Still, is
there a reason why we should not concede that he is -- or, at least, MAY be
-- correct?
Best,
Rick Garnett
At 04:26 AM 6/11/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Eugene, I agree that very global quid pro quo
. My own view -- with the caveat that I have consulted
occasionally with Notre Dame's lawyers during the course of the litigation
-- is that Judge Kessler's ruling is vulnerable on appeal. I'd welcome
others' reactions, though.
Best wishes,
Rick Garnett
Richard W. Garnett
Notre Dame Law School
that endangers [legitimate] interests in a similar or
greater degree. Finally, the City's actions were found to flunk strict
scrutiny.
The opinion is available at 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22185.
best,
Rick Garnett
Notre Dame Law School
At 10:57 AM 11/5/2004, you wrote:
Anonymous students left pamphlets
Dear all,
Nate Oman asked me to forward this to the list:
Eugene,
The issue in Payton is actually (not
surprisingly) narrower than portrayed by USA Today. It has to do
with the issue of whether or not Paton was entitled to an instruction
that under the rather inelegantly worded California
, perhaps, me) have appreciated. Still . .
. I'd welcome others' reactions.
Best,
Rick Garnett
Notre Dame Law School
At 03:11 PM 11/12/2004, you wrote:
The First District Court of Appeal today again held Florida's voucher
system violated the no aid provision of Florida's constitution. The 114
and Bob Tuttle:
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/legal/legal_update.cfm?id=29
Best wishes,
Rick Garnett
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi
funded computers for use in teaching secular subjects in
parochial schools, or even federal student loans for students
attending Notre Dame and majoring in Theology?
Best,
Rick Garnett
At 01:51 PM 3/16/2005, Marty Lederman wrote:
I
think that Chip and Bob's analysis is pitch-perfect. The most
Dear all,
In the course of looking into something having nothing to do with
law-and-religion, I came across a web page, provided by Stanford
University's Office for Religious Life, entitled A Word of
Warning. Here is a link:
http://religiouslife.stanford.edu/sar/warning.html
Here is the text:
A
Dear all,
I appreciate Toni Massaro's reminder about The Great School Wars and the
help that Professor Ravitch's book provides in thinking about the recent
case in Maryland (and many other things). The book is, as Toni says,
illuminating for many reasons. For what it's worth, the Maryland
Dear all,
Laurence Olivier starred in a 1961 film version of Graham Greene's
Power and the Glory. And, One Man's Hero
(1999), starring Tom Berenger, is about the San Patricios (Irish-American
soldiers who deserted during the Mexican-American war).
Rick
At 10:56 AM 8/11/2005, Roman P. Storzer
Friends -- with respect to Marci's suggestion that religious entities be
required to inform people in ministerial positions about the fact that such
entities have a constitutional right to hire-and-fire that is not subject to
many employment-law constraints . . . it seems to me that people
Dear Paul,
What do you say to Will's question about requiring would-be doctors to perform
(elective) abortions? Doesn't your note, below, leave open hard questions
about what, in fact, is necessarily entailed in a particular job? And, so long
as one's scruples are disclosed, why, exactly,
the petition's quality,
http://volokh.com/2010/10/28/antidiscrimination-laws-and-religious-organizations,
but I don't know what he thinks about the merits. Rick Garnett called it one
of the most important religious freedom cases in years.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/one
Dear colleagues,
I agree with Marci that a healthy, positive sense of the distinction between
religious authority and political / civil authority is important for religious
freedom. (This is one reason, I think, measures like the recent attempt in
Connecticut to re-organize Catholic parishes
Dear colleagues,
For what it's worth (disclosure: I helped on an amicus brief, for the
church-school, in the H-T case), and with respect to Marci's statement that
those of us who contend that church autonomy is a crucial dimension of
religious freedom through law are claiming immunity from
in those
circumstances in which the autonomy of religious institutions receives no
protection against neutral laws of general applicability.)
Alan
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Garnett
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:57
of sacrements. The state's legitimate interest in that
case would be very difficult to identify and defend. But here there is no such
problem.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Rick Garnett
rgarn...@nd.edumailto:rgarn...@nd.edu wrote:
Dear colleagues,
For what it’s worth (disclosure: I helped
Dear Marty,
I'm not sure about how you've constructed the run of the mill and not one of
those sorts of cases categories - because I think it seems to make an awful
lot depend simply on what the government has chosen to identify as a prohibited
ground of decision, and it seems to de-emphasizes
Colleagues,
My understanding (just from news reports) is that no Muslim students have
complained about this matter; instead, John Banzhaf filed the complaint, as a
kind of follow-up to his complaint about Catholic University's recently
announced move to single-sex housing for undergraduates.
Dear Marci,
I think you are right about the second sentence, but I disagree with your
second. The opinion seems clearly to reach beyond clergy.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard W. Garnett
Professor of Law and Associate Dean
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780
, at 2:16 PM, Rick Garnett wrote:
Dear Marci,
I think you are right about the second sentence, but I disagree with your
second. The opinion seems clearly to reach beyond clergy.
Best wishes,
Rick
Richard W. Garnett
Professor of Law and Associate Dean
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hosanna-Tabor
There was a very good panel on the case at AALS Saturday morning (organized by
Chris Lund and featuring Doug, Rick, Bob Tuttle, Caroline Corbin, and Leslie
Griffin) and it included, among other things, an exchange between Rick Garnett
at AALS Saturday morning (organized by
Chris Lund and featuring Doug, Rick, Bob Tuttle, Caroline Corbin, and Leslie
Griffin) and it included, among other things, an exchange between Rick Garnett
and Bob Tuttle on the rationale for the ministerial exception. While both
acknowledged that they were
Dear Bruce,
As you say, these are deep and interesting questions. For what it's worth, I
don't think the only or best alternative to a warranted for prudential reasons
carve-out from the state's otherwise applicable authority view of the
ministerial exception is an absolutist two realms
From: Rick Garnett
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:36 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Walsh, Kevin
Cc: Crowley, Donald; conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: RFRA substantial burden analysis
Dear Marty,
I agree with you that there is no moral or religious-liberty right
If only common sense -- and an accommodating spirit, respect for religious
liberty, a tolerance and even appreciation for diversity and pluralism -- of
the kind that seems to have won the day with the TAPP, and that most on this
list are (rightly) celebrating, were playing a similar role in the
Dear colleagues,
Here is the complaint, filed today by the University of Notre Dame, challenging
the mandate on RFRA, FEC, and other grounds. Among other things, it has the
information (I think) that Kevin is asking about.
http://opac.nd.edu/assets/69013/hhs_complaint.pdf
Best,
Rick
/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235
Blogs:
Prawfsblawghttp://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/
Mirror of Justicehttp://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/
From: Rick Garnett
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:47 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious exemptions and discrimination
Dear
school system -- as a constitutional
matter, it can't be part of that system at all.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rick Garnett
rgarn...@nd.edumailto:rgarn...@nd.edu wrote:
Dear Marty,
In this case, if I am reading the opinion correctly, the credits in question
are coming from Oakbrook
of the American school system -- as a constitutional
matter, it can't be part of that system at all.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rick Garnett
rgarn...@nd.edumailto:rgarn...@nd.edu wrote:
Dear Marty,
In this case, if I am reading the opinion correctly, the credits in question
are coming from
a governing principle of our constitutional
order (Meyer, Pierce, etc.).) But religious education as such not only is
not an integral part of the American school system -- as a constitutional
matter, it can't be part of that system at all.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rick Garnett
Colleagues,
I think it needs to be recalled that the cooperation with evil / violation
of conscience issue is not, in the context of the RFRA and other arguments
against the HHS mandate, the whole story. Religious freedom, both as a moral
matter and as a legal one, can be burdened, in ways
Dear colleagues,
Rob Vischer (St. Thomas – MN) has a reaction – one that identifies well the
decision’s many flaws -- to the decision we’re discussing, at the “Mirror of
Justice” blog:
Dear Marty,
For what it's worth, Doug states succinctly and well what is also my view
(though, with respect to religious institutions, I believe that the mandate
burdens religious freedom in the additional, integrity-compromising way that
has been mentioned). I do not believe that our
-supported legislation (of any type)
substantially burdening the exercise of that right be closely scrutinized.
Rick Garnett
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2013, at 7:47 PM, hamilto...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com
hamilto...@aol.commailto:hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
With all due respect, Marc
, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Rick Garnett
rgarn...@nd.edumailto:rgarn...@nd.edu wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I would recommend Prof. Kevin Walsh’s post (here:
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2014/01/what-does-the-form-that-the-government-insists-the-little-sisters-of-the-poor-must-sign
It is true that the oral argument (available online) is striking and revealing.
And, it is true that at least one person involved should be embarrassed.
Rick
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:49 AM, Steven Jamar
stevenja...@gmail.commailto:stevenja...@gmail.com wrote:
Judge Posner
Colleagues -
Two quick things: First, as Eduardo has said, the cooperation with evil
question is tricky and (he and I agree) debatable and debated among informed
Catholics. In my view, though (as Marty and I have discussed a few times), it
is incomplete to think about the burden the mandate
Dear Alan and Chip -
Your conversation is (natch!) insightful and helpful. For what it's worth, it
is not clear to me (putting aside things the Supreme Court may or may not have
said or meant) that either the Establishment Clause or whatever theories of
church-state relations and
Thanks, Tom. Here is the link, if anyone is interested, to the paper (now about
8 years old!):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=855104
It seems to me, for what it's worth, that a ruling for Hobby Lobby would not
(or need not) be wooden, divisive, or conservative, even if we
Dear colleagues,
Like Eugene, I think there is (as always) a lot to what Alan says. Still, with
respect to the specific question whether judicial predictions or observations
of political divisiveness along religious lines should be used to identify
those practices and policies that are
Dear colleagues,
I suppose I am just echoing a point that Eugene made, but it seems to me
that -- while it is certainly possible to imagine settling, at the end of
the day, if only for pragmatic reasons, on a legal regime that did not
extend religion-related exemptions from generally applicable
, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Rick Garnett rgarn...@nd.edu [1]
wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I suppose I am just echoing a point that Eugene made, but it seems to
me that -- while it is certainly possible to imagine settling, at the
end of the day, if only for pragmatic reasons, on a legal regime
Dear Chip,
Thanks for this. I'm hoping that Notre Dame will send a team again. All
the best,
Rick
Richard W. Garnett
Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science
Director, Program on Church, State Society
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, Indiana
Dear Chip,
I'm probably just echoing Eugene's earlier comment but, for what it's
worth, I think your claim that [n]o one who embraced Scalia's description
of limits on the judicial role could be a fan of RFRA, unless perhaps it
turned out that RFRA helped his friends might overstate things a bit
that the
regime of RFRA, as administered by judges and never supervised by
legislatures, is unprincipled.
I hope this answers your question.
Chip
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Rick Garnett rgarn...@nd.edu wrote:
Dear Chip,
I'm probably just echoing Eugene's earlier comment but, for what
Dear Michael,
This does not contradict your point but, as it happens, and for what it's
worth, the Catholic Church has not done away with indulgences. See, e.g.:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-grants-indulgences-for-world-youth-da
That said, there was recently some confusion over the
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
*From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Garnett
*Sent:* Friday, May 01
Dear Nelson,
I don't see that the Hobby Lobby Court reaffirmed the principle against
burden-shifting in religion accommodations or that Justice Kennedy made
it central to his vote if by principle here you mean the argument --
which, of course, you and several others have very ably developed and
Dear Eugene (and colleagues),
I realize the conversation has moved on a bit, but I wanted to thank you
for this hypo; it's been on my mind, too. For what it's worth, when I was
a law clerk, I was -- or, I felt that I was -- in something like the
situation you describe when I was the designated
Eric,
I was not there, but have I listened, and I don't think your
characterization is accurate. Notre Dame, my understanding and impression
are, has not said much about the government's determination to provide (or,
more precisely, to require the provision by others of) contraceptives to
Notre
her religion prohibits a County
> Deputy Clerk from issuing a license even though (unlike ND and its
> insurer/TPA) Davis presumably did not herself enter into a contract with
> the Deputy Clerks.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu> wrote:
>
&
And, in my experience, it's an uncommon Roman Catholic who remembers/knows
what he or she celebrates on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (just a
few days ago, on Dec. 8!). I'm aware of a case in Maine in which the
government lawyer attempted to undermine a Catholic plaintiff's
Dear Marty,
I agree, certainly, that "thoughtful justification" is always important and
welcome. For what it's worth, though, I think it overstates the matter a
bit to characterize the religious-institutionalism arguments as pressing a
blanket right to "opt out of the welfare state" or even to
55 matches
Mail list logo
