The Supreme Court appears reluctant to squarely address the balance between the free exercise of religion and anti-discrimination statutes, or to discuss a claim for hybrid-rights combining “rational basis” free exercise rights with “strict scrutiny” free speech rights.
The value of the Patterson case does not merely hinge on its facts, which would likely have to be developed at the trial level, but more importantly, it provides a vehicle for the Circuit courts to obtain needed guidance from the Supreme Court in order to consistently interpret Title VII religious accommodation requirements.
Supreme Court Requests Solicitor General’s Opinion on Sabbath Accommodation Case Read More »
This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that the 14th Amendment applies the “Excessive Fines Clause” of the 8th Amendment to the states.
This week the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case where nuns filed their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) case opposing a pipeline across their property in the wrong venue and ignored the required dispute resolution process.
Parties objecting to regulatory decision must follow administrative process Read More »
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.
High Court decision on Muslim clergy at execution challenges rule of law Read More »
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.
Supreme Court to decide whether Excessive Fines Clause applies to states Read More »
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.
Turning Back the Clock: The Plot to Dismantle the Establishment Clause Read More »
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.
Kavanaugh on the Religion Clauses Read More »
