Center Papers & Activities in 2019

Here is a retrospective list of some of our papers and activities in 2019, with links where available. A warm thanks to our readers, and best wishes for the new year!

Papers

DeGirolami, The Traditions of American Constitutional Law (forthcoming, Notre Dame Law Review 2020).

Movsesian, Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Future of Religious Freedom, 42 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 711 (2019).

DeGirolami, First Amendment Traditionalism (forthcoming, Wash. U. L. Rev. 2020).

Movsesian, The Armenian Genocide Today, First Things, November.

DeGirolami, The Sickness Unto Death of the First Amendment, 31 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 751 (2019).

Movsesian, Tertullian and the Rise of Religious Freedom, University Bookman, August.

DeGirolami, Notes on a New Fusion, Liberty Fund, July.

Movsesian, Interpreting the Bladensburg Cross Case, First Things, June.

DeGirolami, Cross Purposes, Public Discourse, June.

Movsesian, The Devout and the Nones, First Things, April.

DeGirolami, Jurisprudence as an Expression of Character, Liberty Fund, January.

Activities

Conversation with Hon. Kyle Duncan (5th Circuit) and Hon. Richard Sullivan (2d Circuit) on church-state issues at the Supreme Court.

Legal Spirits (podcast series concerning law and religion).

In spring 2019, DeGirolami was a fellow in the James Madison Program in Princeton University’s Department of Politics.

DeGirolami, Panel on Keith Whittington’s “Repugnant Laws,” James Madison Program, Princeton University, November.

Movsesian, “Church-State Relations in a Time of Scandal,” Morningside Institute, September.

Movsesian, Constitution Day Lecture, The King’s College, September.

DeGirolami, “The Supreme Court’s New Traditionalism,” Skidmore College, September.

DeGirolami, “The Constitution, the Courts, and Conservatism,” Hertog Foundation, July.

The Center for Law and Religion colonizes the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy! June.

Movsesian, “Religion and the Administrative State,” Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason University, March.

DeGirolami, “Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech,” AALS Law and Religion Conference, January.

Legal Spirits Episode 017: Tanzin v. Tanvir and Individual Liability Under RFRA

In this podcast, we discuss the Second Circuit opinion in Tanzin v. Tanvir, the Supreme Court’s second law-and-religion case this term, about whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act contemplates liability for individual federal officers. Along the way, we consider some of the divided cultural backdrop against which this somewhat technical question will be decided. Listen in on our final podcast of 2019!

Wilson & Drakeman’s Church-State Reader

I’m delighted to notice this new church-state reader put together by John F. Wilson (Princeton, emeritus) and our longtime friend and center board member, Donald L. Drakeman, Church and State in American History: Key Documents, Decisions, and Commentary from Five Centuries (4th edition, Routledge). Don kindly informs me that what is new about this edition of the reader is a greatly expanded historical section before the American founding, beginning with the Biblical texts and proceeding through the early Christian and medieval era. It also has the American context, the big Supreme Court cases, and so on.

Every time I teach a church-state course of any kind, I cobble together material from a number of different sources as a kind of rapid introduction for students to this area of the law. This book looks like a handy solution. And I’m sure it’s written with Don’s typical flair and panache.

Here is the description from Routledge:

Church and State in American History illuminates the complex relationships among the political and religious authority structures of American society, and illustrates why church-state issues have remained controversial since our nation’s founding. It has been in classroom use for over 50 years.

John Wilson and Donald Drakeman explore the notion of America as “One Nation Under God” by examining the ongoing debate over the relationship of church and state in the United States. Prayers and religious symbols in schools and other public spaces, school vouchers and tax support for faith-based social initiatives continue to be controversial, as are arguments among advocates of pro-choice and pro-life positions. The updated 4th edition includes selections from colonial charters, Supreme Court decisions, and federal legislation, along with contemporary commentary and incisive interpretations by modern scholars. Figures as divergent as John Winthrop, Anne Hutchinson, James Madison, John F. Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor speak from these pages, as do Robert Bellah, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The continuing public and scholarly interest in this field, as well as a significant evolution in the Supreme Court’s church-state jurisprudence, renders this timely re-edition as essential reading for students of law, American History, Religion, and Politics.

On Blue Laws

Here is something interesting from a book I’m reviewing now by Professor Greg Weiner, The Political Constitution: The Case Against Judicial Supremacy, which takes Justice Felix Frankfurter’s later views of constitutional jurisprudence as in some respects a model for today. Here, Weiner discusses Frankfurter’s view of the Blue Laws, which forbade a wide range of commercial activities on Sunday in order to recognize the sabbath day for Christians, in a famous case called McGowan v. Maryland (1961). The Court upheld these laws for a rather peculiar reason: that “the record is barren” of reasons to *disprove* that forbidding the sales of certain products on Sunday does not contribute to the rationalized well-being of the citizenry.

Justice Frankfurter concurred. Here is a bit from the book with some material from the Frankfurter opinion quoted:

The effect of the law was to set Sundays apart as ‘a day of rest not merely in a physical, hygienic sense, but in the sense of a recurrent time in the cycle of human activity when the rhythms of existence changed, a day of particular associations which came to have their own autonomous values for life.’ Perhaps most important, rather than seeing the case as one pitting lone objectors against the state, Frankfurter recognized the individual’s situation in the context of a political community whose ‘spirit…expresses in goodly measure the heritage which links it to its past’ and which could reasonably decide to create an ‘atmosphere of general repose’ that would be disrupted by exempting individuals from the law.

In other words, the majority of the community was entitled to impose regulations that created what it regarded as conditions for living a good life, which included leisure, community interaction, and, yes, a particular convenience for members of the dominant religion….The religious heritage of blue laws was part of the traditions of a community, which could not regard itself as existing simply in the here and now. (97-98)

I’ll have more to say about the book, and claims like the one above, soon.

On “Social Crusading”

On Thursday, I’m delighted to be participating with Professor Bob Nagel, on a panel, moderated by Prof. Matt Franck, on Professor Keith Whittington’s new book, Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress From the Founding to the Present (2019). The event gives me a chance to return to see my old friends at the James Madison Program at Princeton University, where I spent a delightful and productive spring as a visiting fellow.

The book provides detailed empirical support for the proposition that the Supreme Court, far more often than not (at a rate of about 3:1), upholds congressional statutes than it strikes them down. Whittington extends, but also modifies and enriches, the thesis proposed by Robert Dahl, Mark Graber, and Barry Friedman, among others, that the Court is fundamentally a political institution that very often operates in accord with the other political branches. The counter-majoritarian difficulty famously discussed by Alexander Bickel, in Whittington’s hands (and as one of my exceptional students, Joe Brandt, put it in our Constitutional Theory seminar this fall), becomes a majoritarian difficulty.

I’ll have more to say about the book later, but for the moment I want to call a little attention to a small, but interesting, line in the book discussing Reynolds v. United States (1878), where the Supreme Court upheld the federal Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act against a constitutional challenge by the LDS community on the ground that the Act violated its religious freedom. Polygamy was church practice at the time. Whittington counts this as an example right in line with his general thesis, and I think he is right about that.

But he describes the case in these terms:

“As Congress embarked on new social crusades, the Court stood aside. The Republican Party denounced the polygamy practiced by the Mormons in the West as equally barbaric as the slavery practiced by the slavocracy in the South. When the postbellum Congress turned its attention to bringing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to heel, the Court gave it a free hand.” (170)

It may be a small point, but to describe the Congress as “embark[ing] on new social crusades” by enacting this legislation seems to me not quite right. If anyone was embarking on new social crusades, it was the religious organization, not Congress. I mean that entirely descriptively. Laws against bigamy and polygamy were nothing new in the late 19th century. Indeed, I should think that they would have been regarded as perfectly ordinary and unremarkable, and that is exactly how the Supreme Court regarded them in Reynolds: “At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.” Enforcing long-standing social understandings by law against novel social arrangements is not social crusading. Quite the opposite.

But perhaps this difference of perspective illustrates a broader point about these sorts of descriptions. What we characterize as “social” or “moral” “crusading” (somehow, crusading has taken on unequivocally negative connotations…tant pis) will depend upon a baseline of what we value in existing social conditions and what we deem ordinary legislation to protect those conditions. “Moral” or “social crusading,” then, doesn’t seem to have much meaning beyond something like, “pursuing moral or social objectives I think illegitimate.” If that’s what it means, maybe we should just argue about those first-order disagreements directly (“which morality is best?”), rather than present those disagreements in second-order dismissals (“stop imposing your morality on me!”).

The Standing Argument in the New Abortion Case

In our latest Legal Spirits podcast, Mark and I discuss June Medical Services v. Gee, the latest case about abortion picked up by the Supreme Court. This is a 5th Circuit case reviewing a Louisiana law requiring doctors to obtain admitting privileges at area hospitals in order to continue performing abortions at clinics. The 5th Circuit upheld the law, distinguishing a facially similar law in Texas that the Supreme Court struck down three years ago by a vote of 5-3 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. In the podcast, Mark and chat about the lower court opinion, the petition, and the cross-petition.

I want to say just a little more in this post about the cross-petition, which advances an argument about standing–the constitutional requirement that a claimant allege a concrete and particularized injury that was caused by the defendant and can be redressed by the Court. One widely recognized rule of standing–a “prudential” rule rather than a constitutionally compelled rule (meaning that Congress could, if it wished, legislate around the prudential doctrine)–is that one cannot assert claims on behalf of other parties; that is, so-called “third party standing” or jus tertii is generally impermissible. There are exceptions to the rule. For example, a parent may assert a claim on behalf of a child. But in the main, third party standing has been rejected by the Court as adequate.

One of the exceptions to the third party standing prohibition was carved out by the Court in 1976, after Roe v. Wade, in a case called Singleton v. Wulff. In Wulff, the Court held that two Missouri physicians had standing to challenge a law excluding abortions that were not “medically indicated” for purposes of Medicaid coverage. A majority of the Court found adequate standing for the doctors themselves because of the financial consequences they might face in the absence of Medicaid coverage. But a plurality of the Court went further: in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, it held that physicians have the right to assert third party standing on behalf of women whose rights may be affected by a particular law because it thought that the interests of physicians and their patients in the abortion context are “inextricably bound up” and thus there exists a “close relationship” between them, that doctors are “effective advocates” for their patients, and that women may not be effective advocates of their own rights in this area.

The Gee cross-petition takes aim at this plurality holding in Wulff. Citing Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Whole Woman’s Health (which only he signed), it argues that the Court should revisit the third party standing rule of Wulff and that the interests of women and physicians are actually adverse in this case (it claims that many of the doctors simply do not want to obtain admitting privileges, which would enhance patient safety). It also argues that because the issue of prudential third party standing was not explicitly raised below, the physicians have waived that standing, while the physicians say that it is the state that has waived its right to object to third party standing.

As we discuss in the podcast, there is also an amicus brief in the case submitted by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a former clerk of Chief Justice John Roberts. It argues that the effect of this third party standing rule is to give physicians a heightened standard of review that they would not ordinarily get if they were asserting their own injuries. On their own, the law would be reviewed for a rational basis, but through third party standing, it is now reviewed under the higher undue burden standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And it also argues that even if the physicians are granted third party standing, they cannot satisfy the undue burden standard as fleshed out by Casey and WWH because they cannot show that the statute affects a “large fraction of women,” which is the language used in the cases.

The Court could certainly use this case as a chance either to rethink or to rein in the Wulff rule. Option A: it could revisit the rule altogether and reject the plurality portion of the Wulff rule. Option B: it could narrow the Wulff rule to situations in which there is evidence that a “large fraction of women” might be affected by the legislation in question, and that there is insufficient evidence in Gee. Note that rejecting the third party standing rule altogether would abrogate that part of Whole Woman’s Health concerning standing (doctors brought the challenge there too), while the remainder of the “law” of WWH would remain in effect. Probably there are other possibilities. But resolving the case on the basis of third party standing doctrine might give the Court a way to chip away at existing abortion law without going directly after the likes of Casey. “They’ve narrowed Singleton v. Wulff!!” just doesn’t have the same sky-is-falling quality for abortion rights supporters that a more direct attack might. Going in this direction would also track some of the skepticism with which some members of the Court view its broader standing doctrines (see, for example, Justice Gorsuch’s views on standing in the Bladensburg Cross opinion).

It will be interesting to see just what the Court does with the standing claim. Stay tuned. And for more on the case generally (including some speculation about the standing claim), have a listen to our podcast!

The Religion of Prison Abolition

A stirp of liberation theology, as it were. A new book discussing religious features or religious phenomena attending the movement from the far left to abolish all prisons. The book is Break Every Yoke: Religion, Justice, and the Abolition of Prisons (Oxford), by “activist-scholars” Joshua Dubler and Vincent Lloyd.

“Changes in the American religious landscape enabled the rise of mass incarceration. Religious ideas and practices also offer a key for ending mass incarceration. These are the bold claims advanced by Break Every Yoke, the joint work of two activist-scholars of American religion. Once, in an era not too long past, Americans, both incarcerated and free, spoke a language of social liberation animated by religion. In the era of mass incarceration, we have largely forgotten how to dream-and organize-this way. To end mass incarceration we must reclaim this lost tradition. Properly conceived, the movement we need must demand not prison reform but prison abolition.

Break Every Yoke weaves religion into the stories about race, politics, and economics that conventionally account for America’s grotesque prison expansion of the last half century, and in so doing it sheds new light on one of our era’s biggest human catastrophes. By foregrounding the role of religion in the way political elites, religious institutions, and incarcerated activists talk about incarceration, Break Every Yoke is an effort to stretch the American moral imagination and contribute resources toward envisioning alternative ways of doing justice. By looking back to nineteenth century abolitionism, and by turning to today’s grassroots activists, it argues for reclaiming the abolition “spirit.””

A Defense of Religious Freedom from the Human Rights Perspective

At our 2014 conference in Rome with LUMSA on international religious freedom and the global clash of values, we were delighted to meet Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, then the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. He gave an impassioned talk at the conference.

Professor Bielefeldt, who teaches at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, has a new co-authored book: Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny (University of Pennsylvania Press), together with Michael Wiener.

“Freedom of religion or belief is deeply entrenched in international human rights conventions and constitutional traditions around the world. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United Nations General Assembly adopted in 1966. A rich jurisprudence on freedom of religion or belief is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe. Similar regional guarantees exist in the framework of the Organization of American States as well as within the African Union. Freedom of religion or belief has found recognition in numerous national constitutions, and some governments have shown a particularly strong commitment to the international promotion of this right.

As Heiner Bielefeldt and Michael Wiener observe, however, freedom of religion or belief remains a source of political conflict, legal controversy, and intellectual debate. In Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny, Bielefeldt and Wiener explore various critiques leveled at this right. For example, does freedom of religion contribute to the spread of Western neoliberal values to the detriment of religious and cultural diversity? Can religious freedom serve as the entry point for antifeminist agendas within the human rights framework? Drawing on their considerable experience in the field, Bielefeldt and Wiener provide a typological overview and analysis of violations around the world that illustrate the underlying principles as well as the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and other human rights.

Religious Freedom Under Scrutiny argues that without freedom of religion or belief, human rights cannot fully address our complex needs, yearnings, and vulnerabilities as human beings. Furthermore, ignoring or marginalizing freedom of religion or belief would weaken the plausibility, attractiveness, and legitimacy of the entire system of human rights.”

On the Hospital

Here is an extremely interesting book on the rise of the hospital in the twelfth and thirteenth century, and how it owes its origins to Christian commitments and medieval political economy. The book is The Medieval Economy of Salvation: Charity, Commerce, and the Rise of the Hospital (Cornell University Press), by Adam J. Davis.

“In The Medieval Economy of Salvation, Adam J. Davis shows how the burgeoning commercial economy of western Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, alongside an emerging culture of Christian charity, led to the establishment of hundreds of hospitals and leper houses. Focusing on the county of Champagne, he looks at the ways in which charitable organizations and individuals—townspeople, merchants, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics—saw in these new institutions a means of infusing charitable giving and service with new social significance and heightened expectations of spiritual rewards.

Hospitals served as visible symbols of piety and, as a result, were popular objects of benefaction. They also presented lay women and men with new penitential opportunities to personally perform the works of mercy, which many embraced as a way to earn salvation. At the same time, these establishments served a variety of functions beyond caring for the sick and the poor; as benefactors donated lands and money to them, hospitals became increasingly central to local economies, supplying loans, distributing food, and acting as landlords. In tracing the rise of the medieval hospital during a period of intense urbanization and the transition from a gift economy to a commercial one, Davis makes clear how embedded this charitable institution was in the wider social, cultural, religious, and economic fabric of medieval life.”

Against Federalism

Federalism, the enduring political and legal arrangement that government in the United States is an affair divided between the states and the nation–and, indeed, the broader idea that decentralization, diffusion of power, and local experimentation are positive political goods–sometimes seems to come and go into and out of favor depending upon the political trade-winds. It is invoked as an instrument of resistance by states when the national policy is for some substantive reason thought objectionable; it is decried as an instrument of obstruction when the national policy is for some substantive reason thought attractive. These pragmatic considerations in favor of and against federalism often rear their heads in the law and religion context (think, e.g., sanctuary cities now, decisions about religious displays and legislative prayer, and so many others, at other times). Of course there are some committed theoretical types that champion federalism systematically, one reason for which is to lower the national blood pressure on very contentious issues in the face of increasing political polarization.

But some people seem to want to go the other way for the sake of various substantive objectives, and it is not too surprising to see “equality” as one of these. This new book against federalism is The Divided States of America: Why Federalism Doesn’t Work (Princeton University Press), by Donald F. Kettl.

“Federalism was James Madison’s great invention. An innovative system of power sharing that balanced national and state interests, federalism was the pragmatic compromise that brought the colonies together to form the United States. Yet, even beyond the question of slavery, inequality was built into the system because federalism by its very nature meant that many aspects of an American’s life depended on where they lived. Over time, these inequalities have created vast divisions between the states and made federalism fundamentally unstable. In The Divided States of America, Donald Kettl chronicles the history of a political system that once united the nation—and now threatens to break it apart.

Exploring the full sweep of federalism from the founding to today, Kettl focuses on pivotal moments when power has shifted between state and national governments—from the violent rebalancing of the Civil War, when the nation almost split in two, to the era of civil rights a century later, when there was apparent agreement that inequality was a threat to liberty and the federal government should set policies for states to enact. Despite this consensus, inequality between states has only deepened since that moment. From health care and infrastructure to education and the environment, the quality of public services is ever more uneven. Having revealed the shortcomings of Madison’s marvel, Kettl points to possible solutions in the writings of another founder: Alexander Hamilton.

Making an urgent case for reforming federalism, The Divided States of America shows why we must—and how we can—address the crisis of American inequality.”

%d bloggers like this: