scholarly journals Telescoping and Collectivizing Religious Free Exercise Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry L. Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Free Exercise

If courts are willing to expand religious liberty so that people may be allowed to choose-on the basis of their own religious beliefs-whether certain laws will apply to non-religious entities they create, those courts should take that step very carefully. This Paper explores the issue and pro- ceeds as follows. Part I discusses three recent Supreme Court cases that il- luminate the telescoping and the collectivization of free exercise rights. Part II considers problems that accompany telescoping and collectivizing free exercise rights. Part III suggests how courts should critically evaluate the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights. This Paper con- cludes with a warning about the danger that can accompany insufficient consideration of the telescoping and collectivizing of free exercise rights through entities.

The Competing Perspectives of the Religion Clauses

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Howard Gillman ◽  
Erwin Chemerinsky
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
American History ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Establishment Clause ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Free Exercise Clause ◽  
The Future ◽  
Political Divide

This chapter describes the recent Supreme Court cases dealing with the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, while also previewing the issues likely to arise in the future. It identifies how for both of these provisions there are two competing philosophies, which are titled “accommodation” and “separation.” “Accommodationists” see little as violating the Establishment Clause but want the Free Exercise Clause to be aggressively used to create an exception to general laws based on religious beliefs. “Separationists” see the Establishment Clause as creating a secular government and reject special exceptions for religion. At this point in American history, there is a political divide: conservatives tend to favor the accommodation approach, while liberals favor the separationist view.

Faith, Reason, and the Liberal Order

2018 ◽  
Vol 92 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Francis J. Beckwith ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Legal Scholarship

Claims of religious conscience that run counter to prevailing cultural trends are increasingly met with bewilderment and disbelief. The author argues that this should not surprise us given the ways in which the rational and liturgical status of religious beliefs and practices (especially those tightly tethered to the Christian faith) are widely misunderstood and misrepresented by jurists and legal philosophers. To make this point the author discusses some recent arguments found in court cases as well as in legal scholarship on religion. He encourages Catholic philosophers—who typically do not work in this area--to enter the fray by contributing to the jurisprudential literature that touches on issues of faith, reason, and religious liberty.

Religious Liberty

2019 ◽  
pp. 54-75
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
The 1960S

This chapter places U.S. religious liberty principles in historical context. The 1960s to present day are examined, providing a provocative analysis of religious liberty cases and the ongoing role courts play in this debate, coupled with the legalization of same-sex marriage. A legal analysis is provided for Supreme Court cases.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Prisons and Jails: An Assessment and a Proposal

1995 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 309-327
Author(s):  
Jack E. Call ◽  
Charles Samarkos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
The Law ◽  
Religious Freedom Restoration Act ◽  
The Impact

In November of 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was signed into law by the President. Its purpose was to overrule a 1990 Supreme Court decision and require government to satisfy a compelling interest test when its laws or actions place a substantial burden on an individual's exercise of personal religious beliefs. This article explores the impact of RFRA on prisons and jails. Since there was a failed effort in Congress to exempt prisons and jails from the strictures of RFRA, there is no question that RFRA applies to these institutions. The article begins by explaining the law on the free exercise of religion prior to RFRA. Then the provisions of RFRA and its legislative history are explored briefly. An assessment is made of the likely effect of RFRA on prisons and jails and its constitutionality. The article concludes with a recommendation for amending RFRA designed to insure that the free exercise rights of inmates are adequately protected, while not unduly hampering the ability of corrections administrators to run their prisons and jails safely and efficiently.

Supreme Court Cases

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Bulzomi ◽  
Robert M. Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases

Constitutional Limitations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Reproductive Rights ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Health It ◽  
State Action ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
State Action Doctrine ◽  
Due Process Rights

This chapter describes “due process,” a Constitutional restriction on governmental actions that impact individuals, in the context of public health. It outlines the doctrines of procedural and substantive due process, including the legal tests that courts apply to decide whether individuals’ due process rights have been violated. It uses examples from Supreme Court cases that have defined due process in the context of public health, including those that struggle to define the scope of reproductive rights. It also examines two cases where public health principles were raised as a justification for governmental action: one about involuntary sterilization and one about Ebola. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the “state action doctrine” that defines which public health actors may be challenged on due process grounds.

Confronting Forensic Pathologists

2021 ◽  
pp. 192536212110325
Author(s):  
Victor W. Weedn
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Forensic Pathology ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Forensic Pathologist ◽  
Sixth Amendment ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Forensic Scientists

Background: The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause gives defendants a right to confront their accusers. Method: U.S. Supreme Court cases that interpreted this right as applied to forensic scientists were reviewed. Results: Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, and Williams examined constitutional rights to confront forensic scientists. Lower courts have specifically examined their application to forensic pathology. Whether autopsy reports are considered “testimonial” varies among jurisdictions and has not been definitively settled. Defendants are generally able to compel testimony of forensic pathologists. Where the forensic pathologist is truly unavailable, the surrogate expert should be in a position to render an independent opinion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document