Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • In Royce v. Pan, a California federal court upheld the state’s repeal of the “personal belief” exemption from school vaccination requirements, rejecting claims that the law was hostile to religion. The court found that the law was neutral and generally applicable, and that the removal of the exemption did not unfairly target religious practices.
  • In Shash v. City of Pueblo, a Colorado district court rejected a Native American plaintiff’s RLUIPA and free-exercise claims after he was arrested for DUI, as he objected to a blood alcohol test on religious grounds. The court found that RLUIPA did not apply because the plaintiff was not confined to a qualifying institution, and dismissed the First Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds, noting there was no evidence that the officers were aware of his religious beliefs or intentionally burdened his exercise of religion.
  • In Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc., a Virginia appellate court dismissed a church property dispute, invoking the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, which bars civil courts from intervening in religious matters. The court ruled that Shalom Presbyterian Church’s decision to seek civil court relief after previously submitting to the Presbyterian Church Synod’s authority amounted to a collateral attack on the Synod’s decision, violating constitutional principles of religious freedom.
  • Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon recently signed HB 0207, establishing the Wyoming Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which mandates strict scrutiny of state actions that significantly burden a person’s religious exercise. Wyoming becomes the 29th state to adopt such a law.
  • Georgetown University argues that the government cannot control its DEI curriculum, citing the First Amendment and its Jesuit mission. This raises the question of whether religious freedom could protect religiously affiliated institutions from attacks on DEI practices, as faith-based colleges often defend their right to make decisions based on their religious tenets.
  • The U.S. Acting Solicitor General filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn an Oklahoma ruling that a Catholic-sponsored charter school violated the state constitution and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The brief argues that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits excluding the religious school, noting that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the state, and thus are not subject to the same constitutional constraints as government-run institutions.
    • Stay tuned for our Symposium on this case!
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Mattone Center Participates in Law and Religion Moot Court in Rome

Last week, the Mattone Center’s student fellows–Noa Cadet, Riki Markowitz, Karina Mesrobian, and Panayiotis Xenakis, participated in the 8th International Law and Religion Moot Court Competition in Rome. The competition gathers law students from Europe and the US to argue a mock case before panels representing the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. This was the first time the Mattone Center fielded a team in the competition. Congrats to our team, especially oralists Noa Cadet and Riki Markowitz, and many thanks to Jim Herschlein ’85 for helping to coach!

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • Petitioners in Walke v. Walters asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to issue an injunction barring the Oklahoma State Department of Education from distributing Bibles to classrooms in the state.
  • In Kumar v. Koester, the 9th Circuit held that Hindu professors did not have standing to oppose the inclusion of “caste” as a protected class in their university’s anti-discrimination policy.
  • The Supreme Court denied review in Hittle v. City of Stockton, California. The 9th Circuit had dismissed a religious discrimination suit brought by a city’s fire chief under Title VII.
  • Syria’s interim president signed an interim Constitution protecting freedom of belief for individuals of all religions.
  • The Federal Communications Commission has questioned Google regarding concerns that YouTube TV has been discriminating against faith-based channels on its streaming service.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Moschella on the New Natural Law

This month, the University of Notre Dame Press publishes an introduction what it calls the “new natural law,” Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law: Principles for Human Flourishing, by philosopher Melissa Moschella (Notre Dame). I’m in over my head here, but as I understand it, its proponents argue that new natural law theory (NNLT) integrates the three elements of goods, norms, and virtues more successfully than other approaches. Readers must judge for themselves. Here’s the description from the Notre Dame website:

The foundational principles of ethics and politics are principles that guide us to respect and promote human flourishing. In Ethics, Politics, and Natural Law Melissa Moschella provides an accessible explanation and development of the new natural law account of these principles while clarifying common misconceptions.

As a commonsense ethical theory, natural law grounds ethics in the fundamental dimensions of human flourishing. Moschella lays out the basic principles of natural law, their relationship to the virtues, and their social and political implications. Highlighting the importance of communities for flourishing, Moschella explains how this should shape our understanding of justice and the common good, and shows how natural law principles support limited government and civil liberties. She also considers the relationship between morality and God, and how natural law relates to Christian revelation. This fresh and compelling account of new natural law is the go-to resource to understand this important and influential theory.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  •  In Miller v. McDonald, the Second Circuit held that New York did not violate Amish parents’ Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment when it removed a religious belief exemption from its school immunization law. The court found that the public health law in itself was generally applicable and that there was no evidence that the legislature’s decision to repeal the religious belief exemption in 2019 was motivated by anti-religious sentiment.
  • In CNS International Ministries, Inc. v. Bax, a Missouri federal district court held that a the ministerial exception did not cover a janitor and cafeteria worker at a religious organization that runs residential care facilities for children.
  • Recently, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to address how to combat antisemitism and antireligious hate crimes in general.
  • A group of Christian Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem have come together to issue a public statement denouncing foreclosure proceedings initiated against the Armenian Patriarchate. The foreclosure proceedings stem from an alleged tax debt levied against the Patriarchate, originating from a municipal tax from which Christian institutions have traditionally been exempt. Christian leaders believe that if the proceedings go unchallenged, it will only lead to more expropriation of Christian assets in Jerusalem.
  • Recently, rebels from an Islamic terrorist group stormed a village in the Congo and took approximately one hundred people hostage. From those taken, seventy bodies were discovered in a Protestant church in Lubero. Sources believe that these hostages were killed when they could no longer continue to march alongside their captors.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

Marginalized Religions in the Roman Empire

Most are familiar with the Roman Empire’s treatment of Christianity–which, the conventional account goes, was uniquely bad. But, argues classicist K.P.S. Janssen in a book out this month from Oxford University Press, Marginalized Religion and the Law in the Roman Empire, Rome marginalized other religions as well, and treated them quite similarly in legal terms. Readers can evaluate the argument for themselves. Here’s the description from the Oxford website:

The Roman Empire’s approach to religion has traditionally been described in paradoxical terms. On the one hand, Rome has often been regarded as almost proverbially tolerant, as well as highly flexible in its dealings with the diverse range of religious cults and practices within its territories. On the other hand, the Roman religious landscape was not without its limits, and there were certain groups who found themselves, for one reason or another, on the outside. The legal interactions between these groups and the Roman authorities have largely been studied in isolation. In Marginalized Religion and the Law in the Roman Empire, K. P. S. Janssen instead takes a comparative approach, and investigates how members of various marginalized religious groups were embedded in, and interacted with, the wider Roman legal system. The legal positions of private diviners, Jewish communities and early Christians are compared and contrasted to provide a broader perspective on the legal treatment of marginalized religion in the Roman world. Janssen argues that the known interactions between these respective groups and the Roman authorities are best understood within the wider context of Roman law and administration, and that they furthermore shared a number of important characteristics. While the treatment these groups received was certainly not in all respects identical, the procedural, socio-political, and ideological mechanisms that underpinned the relevant legal measures were nonetheless conspicuously similar.

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.