Related Research Articles
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that:regulate an establishment of religion;prohibit the free exercise of religion;abridge the freedom of speech,the freedom of the press,the freedom of assembly,or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15,1791,as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
United States v. Morrison,529 U.S. 598 (2000),is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995),it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.
City of Boerne v. Flores,521 U.S. 507 (1997),was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
Everson v. Board of Education,330 U.S. 1 (1947),was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Prior to this decision,the clause,which states,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion",imposed limits only on the federal government,while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.
In United States law,the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause,form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
James Harvie Wilkinson III is an American jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His name has been raised at several junctures in the past as a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court.
Reva B. Siegel is the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Siegel's writing draws on legal history to explore questions of law and inequality,and to analyze how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution. She is currently writing on the role of social movement conflict in guiding constitutional change,addressing this question in recent articles on reproductive rights,originalism and the Second Amendment,the "de facto ERA," and the enforcement of Brown. Her publications include Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking;The Constitution in 2020;and Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. Professor Siegel received her B.A.,M.Phil,and J.D. from Yale University,clerked for Judge Spottswood William Robinson III on the D.C. Circuit,and began teaching at the University of California at Berkeley. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,and is active in the American Society for Legal History,the Association of American Law Schools,the American Constitution Society,in the national organization and as faculty advisor of Yale's chapter. She was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2018.
Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.
Thomas Eugene Baker is a constitutional law scholar,Professor of Law,and founding member of the Florida International University College of Law. With four decades of teaching experience,Baker has authored eighteen books,including two leading casebooks,has published more than 200 scholarly articles in leading law journals,and has received numerous teaching awards.
Ann Althouse is an American law professor and blogger.
Conscience clauses are legal clauses attached to laws in some parts of the United States and other countries which permit pharmacists,physicians,and/or other providers of health care not to provide certain medical services for reasons of religion or conscience. It can also involve parents withholding consenting for particular treatments for their children.
Diane Pamela Wood is an American attorney who serves as the director of the American Law Institute,a senior circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1 (1973),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system,which was based on local property taxes,was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.
The Harvard Law &Policy Review is a law journal and the official journal of the American Constitution Society,a progressive legal organization. It was established in 2007. The journal publishes two printed editions per year,as well as additional content posted exclusively online. It is edited by Harvard Law School students and typically has a staff of approximately 75 students. The journal publishes articles presenting progressive ideas for law and policy written by legal scholars,policymakers,practitioners,and students.
The ministerial exception, sometimes known as the "ecclesiastical exception," is a legal doctrine in the United States barring the application of anti-discrimination laws to religious institutions' employment relationships with its "ministers." As explained by the Supreme Court in the landmark case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.,the exception is drawn from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,and seeks to both (1) safeguard religious groups' "freedom. .. to select their own ministers," a principle rooted in the Free Exercise Clause,and (2) prevent "government involvement in [] ecclesiastical decisions," a prohibition stemming from the Establishment Clause. When applied,the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;" for example,female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring. However,exactly which types of employees should qualify as a "ministers," and thus how broadly the exception should apply,was the subject of recent litigation before the Supreme Court.
Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation,439 U.S. 463 (1979),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation,when not requested by the tribe,was valid under Public Law 280.
In United States constitutional law,the penumbra includes a group of rights derived,by implication,from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation",where specific principles are recognized from "general idea[s]" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions. Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century,the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965,when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia,Inc. v. Comer,582 U.S. ___ (2017),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing,while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups,violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Jonathan F. Mitchell is an American attorney,academic,and former government official. From 2010 to 2015,he was the Solicitor General of Texas. He has argued five cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. He has served on the faculties of Stanford Law School,the University of Texas School of Law,the George Mason University School of Law,and the University of Chicago Law School. In 2018,he opened a private solo legal practice in Austin,Texas.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra,585 U.S. ___ (2018),was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act,which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy,including abortion,are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers,typically run by Christian non-profit groups,challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts,the case was brought to the Supreme Court,asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment,applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."
References
- ↑ Hill, Kashmir (May 5, 2009). "Musical Chairs". Above the Law. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
- ↑ "Facebook names first members of oversight board that can overrule Zuckerberg". Reuters . May 7, 2020. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ↑ Kantor, Jodi (July 30, 2008). "Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Slightly Apart". The New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2008.
- ↑ Creation of the Constitution 2006 and 2008 course listings
- ↑ McConnell's oral argument in Rosenberger.
- ↑ Daniel Troy, "Oral Argument in Wileman Brothers Case Leaves Open Compelled Speech Question", Court Watch, Winter 1997
- ↑ Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch, September 18, 2002
- ↑ Bazelon, Emily; "The Front-Runners on Roe: What Bush's shortlist thinks about abortion," Slate, July 5, 2005
- ↑ Ramesh Ponnuru, "Originalist Sin: Conservatives, the Constitution, and affirmative action," National Review, March 10, 2003
- ↑ Brian C. Anderson, "Why the Battle for the Court Will Be Nasty," City Journal, 2002 Summer, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 64–76.
- ↑ Michael McConnell in What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, p. 168, ed. Jack Balkin (NYU Press 2002).
- ↑ McConnell, Michael (2000-12-13) What Now?, Slate.com
- ↑ McConnell, Michael W.; Raskin, Max (April 21, 2020). "Opinion | If Liquor Stores Are Essential, Why Isn't Church?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved June 3, 2021.
- ↑ McConnell, Michael W.; Raskin, Max (December 1, 2020). "Opinion | The Supreme Court Was Right to Block Cuomo's Religious Restrictions". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved June 3, 2021.
- ↑ Michael W. McConnell at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges , a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center .
- ↑ 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
- ↑ 548 U.S. 30 (2008).
- ↑ 553 U.S. 137 (2008).
- ↑ 555 U.S. 460 (2009).
- ↑ Recent Case: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Causation Standard for Subordinate Bias Claims, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1699 (2007)
- ↑ "BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. TO PAY $250,000 TO BLACK WORKER FOR RACE DISCRIMINATION". United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. April 15, 2008. Retrieved October 20, 2017.
- ↑ Who Could Win Every senator's Vote?
- ↑ Weiss, Debra (April 23, 2012). "The Guesswork Begins: Who Would Romney Appoint to the Supreme Court?" . Retrieved June 22, 2012.
- ↑ Biskupic, Joan (October 23, 2008). "For divided high court, two potential legacies". USA Today. Retrieved October 25, 2008.
- 1 2 3 National Law Journal (June 30, 2021). "Inside the Biden SCOTUS Commission’s First Marathon Day-of-Testimony." Retrieved July 17, 2021.
- 1 2 3 McConnell, Michael W. (June 30, 2021). "Written Testimony before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States", www.whitehouse.gov. Retrieved July 17, 2021.
