Attorney Ryan Snow has released a new book that is designed to bring non-lawyers up to date on the most important religious liberty debate facing America. Religious Freedom: What’s All the Freedom About recounts the history behind religious freedom laws, and includes an history of how Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, in 1993 – a feat hardly imaginable today.
In a 147-page ruling issued today, New York Federal Judge Paul Engelmayer found that the Trump administration’s “conscience act” exceeded the president’s authority but did not violate the Establishment Clause. Given its procedural defects, the rule was invalidated in its entirety.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that an organization that sued Hands On Originals (“Hands On”), a t-shirt print company, for discrimination lacked standing as an “individual” to pursue the claim.
Earlier this month, presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke stated that he would support removing the tax-exempt status of organizations and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage. Specifically, O’Rourke said, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution or organization in America that denies the full human rights, and the full civil rights of everyone in America.”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument in a case involving a Louisiana regulation on abortion doctors. It is similar to a Texas case decided in 2016.
A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a religious hospital can be liable for discrimination if it refuses to provide medical services for religious reasons without immediately providing a referral to a hospital that will accommodate the patient.
Commissioners on the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners were no doubt stunned when, on July 8, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously declared (Williamson v. Brevard County) that the commissioners’ practice of automatically denying atheists the opportunity to offer solemnizing invocations/reflections at the board’s meetings was “discriminatory,” “unconstitutional” and “must be rejected.”
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving whether the antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protect LGBT employees. While state laws may provide localized protection, the question of whether the protection extends nationwide has been raised by two employers who have claimed they have the right under existing Federal law to discriminate based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
An update on the status of Patterson v. Walgreen, New York expands statute of limitations on child sexual abuses case, ministerial exception in disability claims, and Sabbath accommodation
The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, concerning a Montana state legislative program that allowed individuals to receive up to a $150.00 tax credit for money that they could donate to one of several K-12 scholarship funds.