Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Theocratic Criminal Law in Iran

The word “theocratic” gets tossed around a lot these days. Usually, it is used to designate what the speaker believes to be a too-close relationship between religion and the state that results in a law or policy the speaker doesn’t like. But genuine theocracies, where clerics serve as the ultimate political authority, are pretty scare. One such theocracy is Iran. A new book from Oxford University Press, On Theocratic Criminal Law: The Rule of Religion and Punishment in Iran, discusses the situation. The author is Bahman Khodadadi (Harvard). Here’s the description from the Harvard website:

On Theocratic Criminal Law explores the roots and structures of the criminal law system of the world’s most prominent constitutional theocracy, the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

While discussing the processes of forced de-westernization and de-modernization which occurred in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, this work examines how the Islamic conception of civil order and polity has been established within the legal and theological framework of the Iranian Constitution. The book engages in a process of ‘rational reconstruction’ of Iranian theocratic criminal law and offers a critical analysis of the way criminal law functions as the centrepiece of this mode of political domination. It illuminates how this revelation-based, punitive ideology functions, how the current Islamic Penal Code (IPC) mirrors prevailing Shiite jurisprudence, and ultimately, from what sort of fundamental defects theocratic criminal law in Iran is suffering. 

This work provides a critical assessment of the criminalization and sentencing theories that have stemmed from the shariatization (Islamization) of all law in the wake of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. By embarking upon a typology of punishment in Shiite Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian Islamic Penal Code the book then provides a systematic critical analysis of the three types of punishment stipulated in the Iranian Penal Code, namely ta’zir, hadd, and qisas. It also explores the jurisprudential principles and dynamic power of Shiite Islam not only as a driving force behind political and social change but as a force that has been capable of forging a whole theocratic legal system.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

New Video on Reynolds v. United States

Happy to announce the release of a new video in our YouTube series, “Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom.” The new video examines the landmark 1878 case, Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court’s first decision on the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.

Through the story of George Reynolds, a devout Mormon charged with bigamy, the Court established that although the Free Exercise Clause protects religious belief absolutely, it allows the state to regulate religious conduct–at least if the state has a good reason for doing so. Learn how Chief Justice Waite’s opinion introduced Jefferson’s “wall of separation” metaphor to the Court’s caselaw and why the Court rejected religious belief as a defense to criminal charges, setting a precedent that still influences religious freedom cases today:



Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  •  In People v. Johnson, a California appellate court ruled that prohibiting a criminal defendant, an ordained minister, from wearing a clerical collar and having a Bible during trial was not a reversible error. The court found that this restriction did not affect the trial’s fairness or the verdict. 
  • In Gartenberg v. The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, a New York federal court ruled that while Title VI must be applied consistently with the First Amendment, it still requires schools to address harassment that goes beyond protected speech. The court found that Cooper Union’s response to antisemitic intimidation, where protestors banged on a locked library door while Jewish students sheltered inside, was inadequate under Title VI, as the conduct was physically threatening and not shielded by free speech protections.
  • In Civil Rights Department v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc., a California appellate court ruled that a bakery violated state civil rights law by refusing to sell a predesigned white cake for a same-sex wedding reception. The court rejected the bakery’s free speech and religious freedom defenses, finding that its policy was facially discriminatory.
  • In Miller v. City of Burien, a Washington federal court upheld the city’s requirement that a Methodist church obtain a permit before hosting a homeless encampment on its property. The court ruled that the permit process did not substantially burden the church’s religious exercise, as the city’s request was a minor inconvenience aimed at ensuring safety.
  • In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the retroactive elimination of the limitation period for filing child sexual abuse lawsuits, ruling that the General Assembly had the power to abrogate the statute of limitations.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Wearing Religious Symbols in Italy

The US doesn’t have too much trouble with people wearing religious symbols in public places. In Europe, though, this has been a consistent controversy–famously in France, but in other jurisdictions as well. A new book from Routledge, Secularism and Freedom of Religion in Italy, addresses the approach of Italian law. The author is political scientist Maria Cristina Ivaldi (University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli). Here’s the publisher’s description:

The display of religious symbols in the public space has been the subject of much debate. This book provides an overview of the presence of religious symbols in Italian public institutions from a legal standpoint.

The situation is analysed from the perspective of the principles of laicità/secularism, as defined by the Constitutional Court, and freedom of religion. It is argued that while the display of religious symbols in public institutions has been widely investigated doctrinally, the wearing of religious symbols in Italy has generally been neglected. Key cases are examined in light of national jurisprudence as well as intervention by the European Court of Human Rights and relevant judgments from foreign courts regarding this issue. Finally, the work considers the presence of religious symbols that transcend national borders, as in the case of arts, sport and advertising. A comparison is made with the French system which takes a very different approach. The book outlines possible ways forward in light of the growing interculturality of European societies.

It will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers and policy-makers working in the areas of law and religion, and comparative law.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • In Swiech v. Board of Education for the Sylvania City School District, an Ohio state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by an elementary school student’s mother, which claimed that differential bussing violated her free exercise rights.
  • Various Christian and Jewish organizations have sued the Department of Homeland Security in a D.C. federal district court over the rescission of the Sensitive Locations Policy, which limited immigration actions in places of worship.
  • In Zubik v. City of Pittsburgh, a federal district court in Pennsylvania barred the city of Pittsburgh from designating a closed Catholic church as a historic structure.
  • In Higgs v. Farmor’s School, Britain’s Court of Appeals held that the termination of a schoolteacher’s employment due to Facebook posts related to Christian beliefs was a violation of the Equality Act of 2010.  
  • In Calvary Temple Church of Evansville Inc. v. Kirsch, the Indiana Supreme Court provided a broad interpretation of a state statute which partially shields non-profit religious organizations from tort liability.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Burge on the American Religious Landscape

For many years, I have profited from the work of political scientist Ryan Burge (Eastern Illinois University). His monographs on the composition of religious groups in the US have been quite valuable, especially when it comes to chronicling the rise of the Nones. He’s always thorough, readable, and insightful. So I’m looking forward to his latest monograph from Oxford University Press, The American Religious Landscape: Facts, Trends, and the Future. Oxford will release the book next month. Here’s the description from the Oxford website:

At its founding, the United States was an overwhelmingly Protestant country. However, over the last 250 years, it has become increasingly diverse with tens of millions of Catholics, millions of Latter-day Saints, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, alongside a rapidly increasing share of Americans who claim no religious affiliation at all. 

The American Religious Landscape uses an in-depth statistical analysis of large datasets to answer foundational questions about this diversity, such as: How many Hindus are there in the US? Which state has the highest concentration of Muslims? Are atheists more highly educated than the general population? How many Roman Catholics attend Mass weekly? It focuses on the overall size, geographic distribution, and demographic composition of twelve different religious groups in short and accessible chapters that, taken together, serve as a basic introduction to the state of religion in America. Through dozens of charts, graphs, and maps–designed for readability and clarity–readers will be left with a solid understanding of the contours of contemporary American religion and what it could look like in the future.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

In Search of Common Ground: An Upcoming Online Symposium

I look forward to participating, along with many friends and colleagues, in what promises to be a fascinating symposium on religion, secularism, and liberalism organized by Steven Heyman and Kathleen Brady and hosted by the Chicago-Kent Law Review: “In Search of Common Ground: Religion and Secularism in a Liberal Democratic Society.” The online symposium, scheduled for February 21, will be open to the public; the link is below. It’s a fabulous lineup of scholars and I’m very grateful to be among them:

Over the past several decades, America’s religious diversity has continued to grow rapidly, as have the percentages of Americans who either are not religious or are not affiliated with a specific religious group or denomination. At the same time, America’s deepening cultural and political divisions have often followed these expanding religious fault lines. These developments have raised new challenges for defining the relationship between law, religion, and secularism under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and beyond. At the Chicago-Kent Law Review’s Symposium, leading law-and-religion scholars who represent a broad spectrum of views will explore a range of doctrinal issues – such as free exercise exemptions, government expression and funding, and the meaning of religion under the First Amendment – and will discuss how people who hold very different worldviews can live together in contemporary society.

For more information, check the link above. Thanks!

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

Here are some important law-and-religion news stories from around the web:

  • President Donald Trump signed an executive order that established a temporary task force within the Justice Department aimed at eradicating anti-Christian bias within the federal government. The Executive Order names the Attorney General as the Task Force chair and vests within the Task Force with authority to review the activities of all executive departments and agencies for unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices, or conduct, recommend methods to revoke or terminate violative policies, develop strategies to protect the religious liberties of Americans, and more.
  •  In a new complaint filed for Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, the plaintiff, a public school teacher,  alleges that DiLoreto Elementary & Middle School violated the Free Exercise clause when she was placed on administrative leave following her refusal to remove a crucifix that she had hung among other personal items in personal workspace near her classroom desk. The plaintiff alleges that the school district pressured her in several meetings to remove the crucifix, and suspended her for two days without pay shortly before placing her on administrative leave.
  • In Groveman v. Regents of the University of California, a California District Court recently dismissed a suit alleging that the University of California Davis alleging that the University violated the plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to operate on campus grounds and exclude Plaintiff from walking on the sidewalk where the encampment was located, despite the fact that the encampment violated school policy. The District Court found that the causal connection between the University’s inaction and the injury the plaintiff suffered was too attenuated for a Free Exercise claim to survive. Further, the District Court held that it was impossible to draw a plausible inference that the defendant’s inaction favored or disfavored any religion or burdened the plaintiff’s religious exercise.
  • The Australian Parliament recently passed new amendments to the country’s Hate Crimes Law, strengthening the punishments for existing offenses that urge and force violence and creating new offenses that threaten force or violence against targeted groups and members of groups. These amendments were passed following several high-profile incidents of antisemitism that have risen across the country.
  • The Supreme Court of India recently held that the government of Chhattisgarh has two months to demarcate new, exclusive burial sites for Christians in an attempt to reduce disputes over burial grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision was made against the backdrop of continued persecution by Chhattisgarh state officials, in which Christians have been routinely (and sometimes violently) denied the right to a Christian burial.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Christianity and American Democracy

Historically, the American approach to church-state relations has had two primary, and complimentary, influences: the Evangelical Christian tradition and the Enlightenment Liberal tradition, both of which support official state neutrality and freedom of conscience. A new book from Jonathan Rauch (Brookings) argues that Christian influence in the US is fading and that the historical bargain between Christianity and liberalism is falling apart. Although he’s an atheist, Rauch regrets this development, which he sees as a threat to America’s future. The book is Cross Purposes: Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy and the publisher is Yale University Press. Here’s the description from Yale’s website:

What happens to American democracy if Christianity is no longer able, or no longer willing, to perform the functions on which our constitutional order depends? In this provocative book, the award-winning journalist Jonathan Rauch—a lifelong atheist—reckons candidly with both the shortcomings of secularism and the corrosion of Christianity.
 
Thin Christianity, as Rauch calls the mainline church, has been unable to inspire and retain believers. Worse, a Church of Fear has distorted white evangelicalism in ways that violate the tenets of both Jesus and James Madison. What to do? For answers, Rauch looks to a new generation of religious thinkers, as well as to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has placed the Constitution at the heart of its spiritual teachings.
 
In this timely critique Rauch addresses secular Americans who think Christianity can be abandoned, and Christian Americans who blame secular culture for their grievances. The two must work together, he argues, to confront our present crisis. He calls on Christians to recommit to the teachings of their faith that align with Madison, not MAGA, and to understand that liberal democracy, far from being oppressive, is uniquely protective of religious freedom. At the same time, he calls on secular liberals to understand that healthy religious institutions are crucial to the survival of the liberal state.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Mattone Center Hosts First Directors Summit

On January 23, 2025, the Mattone Center for Law and Religion hosted the inaugural Center Directors Summit, a gathering of directors of law and religion centers and clinics across the United States. Participants at the event, which took place at the New York Athletic Club, included the directors of centers and clinics at Brigham Young, Emory, Harvard, Notre Dame, Pepperdine, St. John’s, Stanford, and Villanova Universities, The Catholic University of America, and the University of Texas.

The day began with three private roundtables addressing mission, scholarship, curricula, and programs. Participants spoke about the role of law and religion centers and clinics and the benefits they can provide for law professors, students, and the public more generally. 

The summit continued with two panel presentations for Mattone Center student fellows, board members, alumni, and friends, moderated by Judge Richard Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, at which participants shared key insights from the earlier roundtables. You can find a video of the panels here:

It was great to get together with colleagues and friends to talk about our successes, challenges, and plans for the future. I came away from the summit with ideas for our program here at St. John’s, and I’m sure that’s true of the other participants as well. So many law schools in the US have law and religion centers and clinics, yet no one has thought before to bring the directors together to share notes and see how we can continue to provide a benefit legal education in the US. This summit was a great first step, and I hope it will continue on a rotating basis.