In ruling that an unwritten rule, quite possibly manufactured after the execution was already scheduled, should not be subject to a judicial Establishment Clause and potentially Free Exercise Clause analysis, the Court has created a troubling precedent that targets the principle of the rule of law.
It is debatable whether a claim by a public school football coach that he is compelled by religious belief to pray at the 50-yard line following each game is a good vehicle for addressing either free exercise or workplace religious accommodation. However, it does appear that the four justices who signed onto Alito’s response have concerns about the chilling effect of Hardison and Smith on the ability to even raise Title VII religious accommodation and Free Exercise Clause claims. With Patterson v. Walgreen Co., the Supreme Court has the opportunity to revisit religious accommodation claims under Title VII.
The Supreme Court is likely to decide that the 14th Amendment applies the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the states in Indiana civil forfeiture case.
Walgreen v Patterson gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to promote consistency and predictability and resolve disputed interpretation between Circuits, Congress, and the EEOC in a manner that is respectful of both religious beliefs and business needs says amicus Founders’ First Freedom.
Over the last few decades, a religious movement has gained widespread political power with the stated intent of turning back the clock by dismantling the Establishment Clause, which requires separation of church and state.
During Kavanaugh’s 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, he wrote decisions addressing the Establishment Clause that provide a hint of how he might decide if he is seated on the United States Supreme Court.
Within the next week, it is expected that the President will nominate Kennedy’s replacement. The following is a brief inventory of Justice Kennedy’s positions on some key religion clause issues from his appointment in 1988 until his retirement in 2018.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court surprised a lot of us and issued a ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that not only avoided making a real decision, but avoided it with great style.
Attorneys for a Washington florist who refused to make a flower arrangement a same-sex wedding filed a supplemental brief in the wake of Monday’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision which left the question of balance between free exercise of religion and non-discrimination statutes unanswered.
The Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling this morning in favor of the baker in tbe same-sex wedding cake case. The Court’s ruling is narrow but essentially says that the arguments of both sides needed to be treated with respect and neutrality and that the Colorado commission had failed treat Phillips’ beliefs with respect. This […]