[dc]W[/dc]hen the Louisiana state legislature failed to pass the “Marriage and Conscience Act” (HB 707) earlier this year, on May 19, Governor Bobby Jindal issued an executive order that will accomplish the same goal. HB 707 provided that the state […]
When Legislation Fails, Gov Jindal Orders ‘Protection of Conscience’ Read More »
[dc]A[/dc]fter a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously (see Reed v. Gilbert , decided June 18, 2015) that a town cannot bar church signs when it allows similar signs promoting political or ideological viewpoints. In 2007,
Supreme Court Rules Sign Ordinance Adversely Affecting Church Fails Strict Scrutiny Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that a prospective employer’s perceived need to accommodate religious beliefs as a “motivating factor” not to hire violates Title VII.
BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Decision a Victory for Religious Accommodation Read More »
On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states can ban same-sex marriages, and if so, whether states that ban same-sex marriages must recognize same-sex marriages from states that perform them.
Supreme Court’s Decision in Obergefell Could Have Far-Reaching Implications Read More »
On Monday, January 12, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case of whether a local town ordinance violates the First Amendment rights of churches when the ordinance limits the size, quantity, and duration of church signs when political signs are not similarly limited. Attorneys for the town of Gilbert, Arizona have argued that the ordinance is not discriminatory because all non-commercial event signs have the same restrictions. Attorneys for Clyde Reed, the pastor of the Good News Presbyterian Church argued that just because the city claims the ordinance appears to be facially neutral toward religious free speech does not mean that it is actually neutral.
Supreme Court Considers First Amendment Ramifications of Church Sign Ordinance Read More »
On November 13, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an atheist group challenging a tax-exempt housing benefit only available to clergy lacked standing to bring the suit because members of the atheist group could not demonstrate that they had suffered an injury as a result of the clergy tax-exemption.
7th Circuit Rules Challengers to Ministerial Housing Exemption Lacked Standing Read More »
By Jason Hines – Today the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Hobby Lobby and other closely held corporations can refuse to cover certain forms of contraception in the insurance plans they provide to employees because of their “religious beliefs.” Now I put religious beliefs in quotes because despite the Court’s decision, I refuse to admit that corporations, created in order to separate themselves from the people who create them, can have religious beliefs.
Opinion on the Hobby Lobby Decision: More Equal Than Others Read More »
Most business owners set up corporations as legal alter-egos to avoid being held personally responsible if their businesses get sued, but in this case, the employers (in Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood, and Mardel) are saying that their corporations can still manifest the owners’ religious beliefs even if it comes at the potential expense of their employees. The Supreme Court agrees.
Supreme Court Rules Closely-Held Corporations Have Religious Rights Read More »
On June 16, 2014 the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the much-anticipated case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court finding in favor of the Pro-Life group, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA). The court ruled that SBA and co-petitioner COAST (Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes) have standing to challenge an Ohio election statute under which they had been threatened with prosecution for holding members of Congress responsible for their voting record.
U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Right to Pro-Life Political Speech Read More »
By Michael Peabody – Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not provide a reason for declining Huguenin’s writ, it is probably not because the Court intends to lock in the New Mexico decision or that the Supreme Court is not interested in addressing this issue at a later date. It is most likely because the Court is looking for a better case, perhaps a combination of several cases which represent different results in different jurisdictions.
Why Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Not to Hear the New Mexico Photographer’s Appeal? Read More »
