In this episode of Legal Spirits, I speak with Andrea Pin about his new book, Dignity in Judgment, and the role of human dignity in contemporary constitutional law. We explore competing understandings of dignity—a secular, autonomy-based view and a more communal conception influenced by religious traditions—and consider how courts choose between them. Along the way, we discuss why the secular view appears to dominate in practice and how judicial formation shapes the meaning of dignity in constitutional adjudication.
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
Bishop James Massa, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, responded to Vice President Vance’s recent criticism of Pope Leo XIV’s Palm Sunday Homily, emphasizing that “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ.”
This week, the Justice Department Office of Legal Policy’s Weaponization Working Group published a 37-page report which concluded, in part, that “the Biden DOJ ‘engaged in biased enforcement of the FACE Act’ and ‘pursued more severe charges and significantly harsher sentences for peaceful pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants.'”
In a press release following the final hearing of the President’s Religious Liberty Commission, Chairman Dan Patrick rejected the notion that the First Amendment requires a total separation of church and state.
The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne and Rosary Hill Home, a hospice care facility in New York, filed suit in a New York federal district court challenging New York’s requirements for care of transgender patients.
On April 14th, a settlement was reached between the Coast Guard and three Coast Guard members who had brought a class action after they were denied religious exemptions from the military’s COVID vaccine mandate. Among other things, the Agreement requires the Coast Guard to remove references in personnel records of service members’ decision to remain unvaccinated.
Human dignity is ubiquitous in contemporary constitutional law, yet its meaning varies across jurisdictions and even among judges. In a new essay at Emory’s Canopy Forum, I review my friend Andrea Pin’s new book, Dignity in Judgment, which challenges the conventional view that dignity is solely a secular, autonomy-based concept and highlights its religious and communal roots. While I agree with Andrea that dignity has multiple intellectual sources, I argue that courts today overwhelmingly rely on a secular understanding in practice. This convergence, I suggest, reflects the intellectual formation and shared legal culture of judges, who interpret dignity through familiar frameworks shaped by modern constitutionalism.
I’ll be interviewing Andrea about his book in an upcoming Legal Spirits podcast, so please stay tuned! Meanwhle, you can read the full review here.
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
Vice President J.D. Vance spoke regarding growing tension between the U.S. military and religious leaders and the pushback against current US military operations in Iran.
In Perry v. Marteney, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a law in West Virginia that required vaccinations for public school students without religious exemptions.
in Singh v. Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, a case regarding the transfer of a Sikh Temple into a trust, the court held that the ‘neutral principles exception’ to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine can apply outside of church property cases.
In Maniar v. Noem, a D.C. District Court dismissed a suit brought by a Pakistani-American couple who claimed that being placed on a Screening List at the airport violated their free exercise rights.
In Johnson v. Fleming a Virginia federal district court dismissed Free Exercise claims regarding religious exclusions from a state tuition program.
Therapist Kaley Chiles at the Supreme Court (CSPAN)
In this short take, Mark Movsesian looks at the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision this week in Chiles v. Salazar, involving a Christian therapist who challenged Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors. Formally, Chiles is not a free exercise case. But religion is clearly in the background—a reminder that law-and-religion controversies are often worked out through the First Amendment’s speech protections. Listen in!
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit by a Mississippi street preacher who claims that his arrest for demonstrating near an amphitheater violated his free speech and religious liberty rights.
A federal judge ordered immigration officials to allow clergy and religious workers access to detained migrants in Minneapolis, ruling that denying pastoral visits likely violated religious liberty protections.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court arguing that turning away migrants at the border is unlawful and inconsistent with the nation’s moral obligations.
Members of Congress introduced legislation that would protect the tax-exempt status of churches and religious organizations from being revoked based on their views or speech.
India’s Maharashtra legislature passed a new anti-conversion law this week requiring advance notice before religious conversions and imposing criminal penalties for conversions obtained through coercion, fraud, or marriage. The law has drawn criticism from religious minority groups.
Earlier this month, the Mattone Center Student Fellows had the privilege of traveling to Rome to participate in the ninth International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion, held on March 13 and 14 at the St. John’s University Rome campus. The competition brought together teams from law schools from the United States and Europe, including teams from Italy, Poland, and Ukraine–about 100 participants in all. This marked the first time St. John’s has hosted the competition. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ’83, a member of the Mattone Center’s board, served as one of the judges at the competition.
The competition problem centered on a hypothetical dispute between a religious school, Thomas More School, and the government of the State of Utopia, which had enacted an “Equality in Education Act” alleged to infringe upon the school’s right to freely exercise its religious beliefs. The fellows were divided into two teams: Kalina Mesrobian ’26 and Stacey Kaliabakos ’27 represented the school, while Vincent D’Avanzo ’27 and Isabel Lane ’27 argued on behalf of the government.
Being able to represent St. John’s in an international competition was an exciting and rewarding experience for our fellows. The fellows were were very fortunate to receive guidance from Center Director Mark Movsesian, St. John’s Law School Professor Robert Ruescher, and St. John’s Law alumnus James Herschlein, chair of the Litigation practice group at Arnold & Porter, who generously served as their coach and traveled to Rome to support the team in person. Their mentorship played a substantial role in helping our fellows grow their advocacy skills and confidence as they headed into the competition.
Beyond the “courtroom,” the experience in Rome was truly unforgettable. Our fellows had the opportunity to form friendships with students from different countries, schools, and legal traditions, showing them how the answers to questions at the intersection of law and religion can vary across the globe. They were also able to explore some of Rome’s most iconic sites, including the Vatican Museums, the Galleria Borghese, the Pantheon, the Trevi Fountain, the Spanish Steps, and the Colosseum.
Participating in this competition was a unique experience that strengthened the fellows’ legal skills, as well as their sense of community within the international legal world.
Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:
In Stinson et al v. Fayetteville School District No. 1, et al, regarding an Arkansas law that would require elementary schools to hang the Ten Commandments in classrooms, the Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining certain school districts from complying with the law.
In Chaudry v. Thorsen, an Illinois District Court rejected any Establishment Clause claims against a high school teacher brought by the parents of a student, wherein the teacher provided resources to the student who was seeking to convert from Islam to Christianity.
In a case in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court held that a German Catholic Organization could not dismiss one of its employees on the grounds of leaving the Catholic church.
Earlier this week, the President’s Religious Liberty Commission held a hearing on the topic of religious liberty in the healthcare industry, discussing topics such as vaccine mandates and potential threats to religious liberties in the medical field.
Here is an interesting looking book from Oxford that explores religious freedom from the perspective of sociology: “A Sociology of Religious Freedom,” by Professors Olga Breskaya and Giuseppe Giordan of the University of Padua and James Richardson of the University of Nevada. I’m looking forward to reading the sections on defining religious freedom, in particular. Here’s the description of the book from the Oxford website:
In recent years, the relevance of religious freedom has spread well beyond academia, becoming a reference point for international relations, multi-level policy development, as well as interfaith negotiations. Meanwhile, scholarship on religious freedom has flourished on the boundaries of sociology, law, comparative politics, history, and theology. This book presents a systematic sociological analysis of religious freedom, bringing together classical sociological theories and empirical perspectives developed during the last three decades. It addresses three major questions involved in any sociology of religious freedom. First: considering its complex and controversial nature, how can religious freedom be defined? Second: what are the recurrent sociological conditions and relevant social perceptions that will foster an understanding of religious freedom in varying political, legal, and socioreligious contexts? And third, what are the mechanisms of social implementation of religious freedom that contribute to making it a fundamental value in a society? Olga Breskaya, Giuseppe Giordan, and James T. Richardson suggest that a sociological definition of religious freedom requires us to take into account historical, philosophical, legal, religious, and political considerations of a given society-and that the social dimensions of religious freedom are as important as the legal ones.
Last week, the Mattone Center Fellows competed in the 9th edition of the International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion at the St. John’s campus in Rome. We are very proud of Kalina, Stacey, Vincent, and Isabel for their performances and hard work. Thank you also to Jim Herschlein for coaching our team and Judge Vyskocil, Judge Forrest, and Dr. Jeremy Gunn for judging the tournament. This was a truly special opportunity that the Center and its Fellows will never forget.
