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.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The Justice Department recently reached a settlement with a township in Pennsylvania on behalf of group of Old-Order Amish residents who were penalized for failing to connect to the town’s sewage system and placing permanent outhouses on their property. The Justice Department brought suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the settlement requires the Township to exempt certain households, as well as forgive any outstanding liens or fines arising from the violations.
  • President Trump issued an executive order intended to combat antisemitism, reaffirming Executive Order 13899 issued during his prior administration.
  • A court in Ukraine recently suspended the evictions of Orthodox monks from the Kiev Caves Lavra Monestary, among the most famous of Orthodox monasteries in Ukraine and spiritually significant to Orthodox Ukrainians and Russians. The monastery has been state-owned since the Soviet era, and the Brotherhood’s contract with the State of Ukraine was terminated as part of a general trend of discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patriarchate, partially in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  • In Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, a California federal district court allowed an Evangelical Christian lifeguard’s free exercise and Title VII claims to proceed in a case seeking a religious accommodation to displaying a pride flag on his lifeguard stand.
  • US Catholic Bishops have petitioned believers to urge their members of Congress to resume foreign aid programs recently suspended by the Trump administration.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New Book on Law & Religion in China

This month, Wolters Kluwer releases the third edition of Religion and Law in China, a practitioners’ guide that looks useful for academics as well. The book covers such topics as the constitutional status of religion, religious freedom, and the effect of international law on religious communities. The author is Zhao Jianmin. Here’s the description from the Wolters Kluwer website:

Derived from the renowned multi-volume International Encyclopaedia of Laws, this convenient resource provides systematic information on how China deals with the role religion plays or can play in society, the legal status of religious communities and institutions, and the legal interaction among religion, culture, education, and media.

After a general introduction describing the social and historical background, the book goes on to explain the legal framework in which religion is approached. Coverage proceeds from the principle of religious freedom through the rights and contractual obligations of religious communities; international, transnational, and regional law effects; and the legal parameters affecting the influence of religion in politics and public life. Also covered are legal positions on religion in such specific fields as church financing, labour and employment, and matrimonial and family law. A clear and comprehensive overview of relevant legislation and legal doctrine make the book an invaluable reference source and very useful guide.

Succinct and practical, this book will prove to be of great value to practitioners in the myriad instances where a law-related religious interest arises in China. Academics and researchers will appreciate its value as a thorough but concise treatment of the legal aspects of diversity and multiculturalism in which religion plays such an important part.

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision blocking a Catholic school from becoming a public charter school. The state court ruled that allowing a Catholic school to operate as a public charter school violated the Establishment Clause, while the school argues the decision violates the Free Exercise Clause.
    • The Mattone Center will co-sponsor a symposium on this case in April. Stay tuned for details.
  • In Bagal v. Sawant, the 9th Circuit ruled that a Hindu living in North Carolina lacked standing to challenge Seattle’s Anti-Caste Discrimination Ordinance. The court found no credible threat of enforcement for activities like ordering a vegetarian meal or wearing a Mauli thread during planned future visits to Seattle, as the ordinance does not regulate these practices.
  • In Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc., the 1st Circuit upheld the dismissal of a Title VII lawsuit filed by a TV news photographer who sought a religious exemption from his employer’s COVID vaccine mandate. The court ruled that the employer successfully proved an undue hardship defense, stating it reasonably relied on scientific evidence showing that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19, rather than basing it on the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.
  • In Winder v. United States, a Texas federal court dismissed a negligence suit against an Army Chaplain over advice to involve law enforcement in a suicide threat, which led to a fatal confrontation. Citing the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court held that deciding the case would improperly require examining the Chaplain’s religiously-informed duty of confidentiality.
  • In St. Luke’s Health System, Inc. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Schultz, the Kansas Court of Appeals held that employees seeking a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate only need to provide a written statement explaining how the mandate violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, emphasizing that the state statute prohibits employers from questioning the sincerity of the employee’s beliefs.
  • Harvard University has reached a settlement in a lawsuit filed last May, accusing it of tolerating antisemitic bullying and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. As part of the settlement, Harvard will adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism for discipline, recognize Zionism as a protected category, create a dedicated position for antisemitism complaints, and implement various measures, including annual public reporting and mandatory staff training.
Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A Very Short Introduction to Toleration

In my law and religion seminar this semester, we’ve been spending a lot of time on John Locke, specifically, the Letter Concerning Toleration. For Locke, toleration, which presumes distance from and even disapproval of those not like oneself, is the guarantor of social peace in a liberal order. The fact that many people today view tolerance as disagreeable–we feel entitled, not to tolerance, but approval–helps explain why liberalism is having such trouble.

A new book from Oxford University Press, Toleration: A Very Short Introduction, surveys the history of the concept, from its initial focus on religious difference to its expanded scope, and considers its role in politics today. The author is political scientist Andrew R. Murphy (University of Michigan). Here’s the publisher’s description:

Toleration is one of the most foundational and contentious concepts in contemporary political discourse. Although its modern origins lie in the realm of religious dissent, toleration remains one of our most contentious and broad-ranging concepts, invoked in today’s debates about race, gender, religion, sexuality, cultural identity, free speech, and civil liberties. Questions of toleration arise wherever unpopular groups face hostile environments and stand in need of protection from state interference or the actions of their neighbors.

Toleration can seem counterintuitive at first glance, since it involves a complex mixture of rejection and acceptance, combining disapproval – of particular individuals, groups, beliefs, and practices – on the one hand with legal and political guarantees for such groups on the other. Toleration has long been considered a cardinal virtue of liberalism, endorsed by central figures such as Locke, Mill, and Rawls. Although toleration has been criticized as unduly minimal, compared with more expansive terms such as recognition or acceptance, it has routinely played a key role in the protracted struggles of marginalized groups of various sorts (a necessary, if not always sufficient, condition for liberty). Toleration: A Very Short Introduction will concisely canvass the history, development, and contemporary global status of toleration as both a concept and a contested political and legal practice.

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

The Mattone Center Launches a YouTube Channel & Video Series

I’m delighted to announce that this month the Mattone Center has launched a new YouTube channel. The platform features diverse content, including episodes of the Legal Spirits podcast, a new video series, Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom, panels and interviews , and event highlights. The channel aims to promote engaging discussions and provide valuable insights into the intricate relationship of law and religion. 

One standout feature of the new channel is the animated series, Landmark Cases in Religious Freedom, which examines conflicts between law and religious conscience in American jurisprudence. Each video provides historical context, explains key legal arguments and court decisions, and analyzes the broader societal impact of these pivotal cases. 

The first video in the series, “People v. Philips: An Early Case About Free Exercise,” explores an early precedent from New York on the priest-penitent privilege. It has resonated strongly with viewers, amassing over 30,000 views and counting in the short time since its launch. Here it is:

The response to this first video shows that we are serving a real need. People want to understand how courts balance legal principles and religious faith. As an academic institution, the Mattone Center is uniquely positioned to provide that understanding, and YouTube, which reaches millions of people around the world, offers a new opportunity for us to do so. Scholars shouldn’t confine themselves to academic circles; we should engage with the wider world. That’s exactly what we aim to achieve with this channel.

Please consider subscribing to the channel, so you can receive updates as new material becomes available. Thanks!

Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear a religious-liberty challenge to a Montgomery County, Maryland policy that ended opt-outs for parents who object to elementary-school instruction involving themes of sexuality and gender identity.
  • This week, in an ongoing battle between Southern Methodist University and the United Methodist Church, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding SMU’s desire to separate from the church.
  • In Secular Alliance v. U.S. Department of Education, the D.C. federal district court dismissed some of plaintiff’s claims regarding a rule prohibiting schools that receive Education Department funding from denying benefits to secular groups due to their religious beliefs.
  • Several Jewish schools in New York have filed suit against the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, alleging that the department discriminated against them under Title VI by interfering with and disfavoring Jewish Studies curricula.
  • In Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System, a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order in the Church’s suit against the University. The church alleges that the university’s decision to rescind the sale of a satellite campus to the church constituted Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause violations.  
  • The American Humanist Association has filed suit against West Virginia for a grant of $5 million to a Catholic trade college, alleging that the grant violates the West Virginia constitution by awarding taxpayers’ money to a Catholic institution.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Around the Web

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

  • The First Circuit heard oral arguments in St. Dominic Academy v Makin and Crosspoint Church v Makin. Both cases stem from the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin and involve challenges to a Maine statute that provides that schools receiving state funds cannot discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Plaintiffs allege that the Maine law has the effect of excluding certain Christian schools from Maine’s tuition assistance program.
  • In a new complaint in Berkemeir v. Genesee County Museum, the plaintiff alleges that the Genesee Country Museum violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses when it fired her because of her belief that the Museum’s Diversity, Equity, Acceptance, and Inclusion program was inconsistent with her sincerely held beliefs.
  • Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill posted Guidance regarding a Louisiana law that requires the display of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom. Released after a Louisiana Federal District court enjoined five parishes from implementing the new law, the Guidance now requires posting only if the displays themselves or funding for the displays are donated and imposes no punishment if a school does not display the Commandments.
  • In Garner v. Southern Baptist Convention, the Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville held that a defamation suit brought by a Baptist pastor against the Southern Baptist Convention cannot be excluded from judicial consideration under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The Court of Appeals held that the suit did not require the court to resolve any religious disputes or to rely on religious doctrine, but was focused almost entirely on the Baptist Convention’s purported publication of written and oral statements that Mr. Garner was “an individual with an alleged history of abuse.”
  • The Pew Research Center recently published a study of the religious affiliation of members of the 119th Congress. The article reports 86.7% of the members of the Senate and House combined are Christian, of which 55.5% are Protestant, 28.2% Catholic, 1.7% Latter Day Saints, 1.1% Orthodox Christians, and 0.2% Messianic Jewish. Six percent of Congress is Jewish. Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian Universalists, and Humanist adherents account for less than 1 %. The religious affiliation of 3.9% of Congress is unknown.
Posted on by L&R Forum

Legal Spirits 065: Reading CS Lewis in Law School

Photo: Reasonable Theology

In this episode, Fordham Law Professors Sean Griffith and Richard Squire join Mattone Center Director Mark Movsesian to talk about their experience leading a discussion of CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity in a student reading group this past semester. Sean and Richard discuss their goals in establishing the group, their students’ response to Lewis–in particular, his defense of natural law and Christian ethics–and the value of taking Christianity seriously as a matter of faith and intellect at a 21st-century American law school. A fascinating and wide-ranging discussion. Listen in!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Posted on by Mark Movsesian

A New History of the Religion Clauses

From Oxford University Press, here is a new history of the religion clauses, Free Exercise: Religion, the First Amendment, and the Making of America, focusing especially on the social and cultural context at the time of the Framing, and foregrounding the experience of marginalized religious communities like Jews and Catholics, among others. The author is historian Chris Beneke of Bentley University. Oxford’s description follows:

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Those words, scratched on parchment in 1789, open the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. From them, countless interpretations have been drawn. As a consequence, an astonishing variety of activities in modern America-prayer after football games, Bible reading in classrooms, company healthcare policies, the baking of wedding cakes, and Ten Commandment displays around courthouses-have been alternately authorized, prohibited, or modified.

In this compelling historical account, Chris Beneke explains how the religion clauses came into existence and how they were woven into American culture. He brings prominent early national figures to life, including George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, while chronicling the First Amendment’s relationship to defining social conditions like slavery, civility, family life, and the free market. Beneke probes what kind of nation America was when the religion clauses were framed and what kind of nation it was becoming.

Going beyond traditional church-state scholarship, Beneke also demonstrates how white women, African Americans, Roman Catholics, Jews, and nonbelievers widened religious liberty’s application and illuminated its boundaries. In doing so he makes a groundbreaking contribution to both constitutional history and the history of American pluralism.