On October 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case on the issue of whether individual FBI agents can be held financially liable if they are found to have violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The underlying case involves Muslim-Americans who alleged that individual FBI agents put them on the “no fly” list after they refused to act as informants against fellow Muslims in terrorism-related investigations.
In an effort to understand the longest-serving Justice’s influence and the importance of his replacement, here is a brief survey of how Scalia decided in several key cases.
In response to a state Supreme Court decision upholding incarceration of an Amish group for refusing for religious reasons to install orange triangles on their buggies, the Kentucky Legislature has, by a veto proof margin, passed a measure (HB 279) which is designed to prevent the government from substantially burdening an individual’s freedom of religion.
By Richard Epstein EXCERPT: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One glaring weaknesses of the modern law on religious freedom is that it turns a blind eye toward neutral rules with a disparate impact on members of minority groups. That is why Justice Scalia was wrong in Employment Division, Department of Human…
Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic’s physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation? The California Supreme Court says “No.”