New Head Of White House Faith-Based Office Appointed

Almost unnoticed last week, President George W. Bush appointed a new head of the White House Office of the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He is Jay Hein. The White House's Aug. 3 announcement of the appointment said:

Mr. Hein is the President of the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, a national think tank he founded that specializes in community-based reforms. Mr. Hein also serves as Executive Vice President and CEO of the Foundation for American Renewal, which provides financial grants and other support to community-based organizations and educates the general public on effective compassion practices.

"Jay has long been a leading voice for compassionate conservatism and a champion of faith and community-based organizations. By joining my Administration, he will help ensure that these organizations receive a warm welcome as government's partner in serving our American neighbors in need," stated President Bush.

Mr. Hein previously was Executive Director of Civil Society Programs at the Hudson Institute. Earlier in his career, he served as a Welfare Reform Policy Assistant to the Governor of the State of Wisconsin...

One of the few papers covering the appointment of the Indiana resident was the Indianapolis Star which said that White House officials discovered Hein when, at the suggestion of former Indiana Senator Dan Coates, they went to Hein for suggestions about other candidates for the job.

InnerChange: Latest Developments

On July 1, 2007, this blog reported (here) that Iowa prison officials have reached an agreement with the faith-based prison treatment program, InnerChange, permitting it to continue to operate-- at its own expense-- at Newton Correctional Facility pending the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on whether the program violates the Establishment Clause.

Yesterday's Des Moines Register (IA) has an editorial calling that decision into question, writing "If the state desires to institute 'values based' programs aimed at reforming convicted criminals, it must be sure they are not disguised as government-sponsored avenues for evangelization."

Defendants have also filed two F.R.A.P. 28(j) letters providing supplemental authorities to the court. One relates to rates of recidivism for inmates in the program. The second discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in Hein v Freedom from Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. ____ (2007) (June 25, 2007) and University of Notre Dame v Laskowski, No. 06-582 (US June 29, 2007) (cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded in light of Hein). Both of these cases are discussed here.

Defendants argue that the district court relied heavily on Laskowski, and "[t]hus the anomalous legal basis for allowing private, taxpayer plaintiffs to compel restitution to the government is gone, and the decision below granting that remedy should be reversed." Plaintiffs argue in reply that unlike the case in Hein, "InnerChange was funded for the last four years with appropriations by the Iowa Legislature specifically for the program." Plaintiffs also argue that "The restitution question is an issue of remedy, not standing. Hein does not impact the logic of prior cases that treated restitution as an available remedy...."

Head of White House Faith-Based Initiative Interviewed

Today's Waco, Texas Tribune-Herald publishes an interview with Jay Hein, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Among other things, Hein says he expects that his Office, created by Executive Order, will survive beyond the Bush administration. He said: "more and more public officials on both sides of the political aisle see the pragmatic value of this as a governing strategy." Asked about safeguards in maintaining separation of church and state in the program, Hein said: "We're setting the bar very high on understanding appropriateness, the appropriate use of public funds and the appropriate expression of faith in delivery of services."

Supreme Court Remands Notre Dame Case In Light of Hein Decision

On Friday, taking up the case of Notre Dame University v. Laskowski, (Case No. 06-582), the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 7th Circuit for further consideration in light of the Court's recent decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. In the Notre Dame case, the 7th Circuit had held that taxpayers had standing to challenge a grant from the Department of Education to Notre Dame University to fund a Catholic teacher training program. The case raised the unusual question of whether Notre Dame might have to repay past government funds it had already spent. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Unlike the expenditure in Hein that was from a general appropriation to the executive branch, the funds given to Notre Dame stemmed from a specific earmark by Congress in Sec.309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-261 to 262 (Nov. 29, 1999). Today's Inside Higher Ed reports on the Supreme Court's action.

LDS Church Sued Along With Scouts In Suit Over Abuse By Scoutmaster

The Legal Intelligencer reports that last week, in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia (PA), a 28-year old man filed suit against the Boy Scouts of America and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for damages because of sexual abuse plaintiff suffered at the hands of scout leader Vance Hein in 1998- 1999. The suit, filed Dec. 12, alleges that the LDS Church "jointly operated and/or controlled" the troop along with the Boy Scouts. Hein, who is currently in prison, was also a church youth leader.  Plaintiff's lawyers plan to depose LDS Church leaders to determine their role in keeping Hein on as a scout leader.

Personnel Changes At Two Federal Religion Agencies

Personnel changes have been announced at two federal agencies dealing with issues of religion. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom announced yesterday that James D. Standish has been appointed its new Executive Director. Previously Standish served for seven years as Director of Legislative Affairs at the Seventh-day Adventist Church World Headquarters. Standish replaces Joseph R. Crapa who died last year.

Meanwhile, The Roundtable reports that Jay Hein, director of the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, has resigned effective August 29 in order to care for his father who is suffering from cancer. Hein announced his resignation last week during his regular conference call with state liaisons to religious charities. The White House is seeking a replacement for Hein. [Thanks to Melissa Rogers for this lead.]

7th Circuit Limits Taxpayer Standing In Suit Seeking Restitution From Notre Dame

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Laskowski v. Spellings, (7th Cir., Oct. 14, 2008) held that federal taxpayers lack standing to sue a private recipient of a federal grant for restitution to the Treasury as a remedy in an otherwise moot Establishment Clause case. The case involved a $500,000 Congressional earmark for Notre Dame University to use to operate a teacher training program. While the suit was pending, the grant expired. This mooted the claim for an injunction against the Secretary of Education. Originally in a 2-1 decision, the 7th Circuit permitted the claim for restitution against Notre Dame to proceed. However, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its Hein decision. The 7th Circuit now concludes that after Hein, "taxpayers continue to have standing to sue for injunctive relief against specific congressional appropriations alleged to violate the Establishment Clause, but that is all." [Thanks to Derek L. Gaubatz for the lead.]

SCOTUS Hears Arguments Today On Taxpayer Standing To Challenge Faith-Based Inititative

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, raising the question of whether taxpayers have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to expenditures and activities of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The 7th Circuit said they did. (See prior postings: 1, 2 .) Detailed background on the case can be found in a posting at The Roundtable, written by Professors Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle. An editorial in today's New York Times urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 7th Circuit's grant of standing.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times has an account of today's oral arguments in the case.

UPDATE: The full transcript of today's oral arguments in the Hein case is now available online.

UPDATE: Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has a particularly interesting account of the oral argument.

Court Refuses Delay In Challenge To Faith-Based Prison Program

In Moeller v. Bradford County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7965 (MD PA, Feb. 5, 2007), a Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge rejected defendant's motion to stay proceedings in a case challenging the constitutionality of federal, state and local funding of a faith-based vocational training program in the Bradford County (PA) Correctional Facility. (See prior posting.) Defendant had argued that the case should not move ahead until the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision in the pending case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. (See prior posting.) The court wrote: "It is speculative as to if any decision issued by the Supreme Court in Hein would in fact affect our case and the standing decision this Court has rendered, and it is speculative as to when the Supreme Court will issue its decision."

Taxpayers Have Standing To Challenge TVPA Grant To Catholic Bishops

In ACLU of Massachusetts v. Sebelius, (D MA, March 22, 2010), a Massachusetts federal district court held that taxpayers have standing to challenge a grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. USCCP made grants to subcontractors, and specified in all of them that no referrals could be made for abortion services of contraceptive materials. In finding standing, the court said:

The issue is by no means open and shut, but the court is of the view that the ACLU has met its burden under Flast of showing a link between the congressional power to tax and spend and a possible violation of the Establishment Clause in the grant of public funds to the USCCB....

In closing, I do not pretend that Hein offers clear direction to lower courts as to how to draw the line between just enough congressional involvement to confer taxpayer standing and too little so as to deny it. I further recognize that the distinction between congressional and executive spending propounded in Hein may be unrealistic given the complexities of modern interactions between Congress and the Executive Branch. I have no present allegiance to either side of the debate, only a firm conviction that the Establishment Clause is a vital part of the constitutional arrangement envisioned by the Framers, and perhaps a reason we have not been as riven by sectarian disputes as have many other societies. I also agree that a rule that has no enforcement mechanism is not a rule at all. Taxpayer standing may not be the best or the most desirable or even a necessary means of enforcing the separation of church and state, but unless the Supreme Court decrees differently, it is one of the principal tools available. The uncertainty of the scope of taxpayer standing necessarily invites decisions lacking in consistency. I have no doubt that many of my colleagues would (and will) in all good faith draw the line differently than have I. But until the Supreme Court gives definitive guidance, judges will have to decide using their best understanding of the law as it exists. That is what I have attempted to do here.

White House Hosts Conference On Faith-Based Initiative

Yesterday and today the White House is hosting the "Innovations in Effective Compassion" National Conference, a meeting of over 1000 people interested in the federal Faith Based and Community Initiatives. In anticipation of the conference, OFBCI director, Jay Hein, held a press briefing (full text). Responding to a question about church-state issues raised by the program, Hein said:

I think really one of the stellar achievements of this initiative is that we've clarified ... what is allowable and what is not allowable, according to the First Amendment.... the President felt very strongly that it was wrong to just artificially close the door for those who were motivated by their private faith to perform a public service -- if they were creating these housing solutions for the homeless, and other important community outcome.

At the same time, we know that the First Amendment prohibits establishment of church, and so the President said very clearly that tax dollars are not to be used for spiritual mission -- only for secular mission; only for community service mission.

Yesterday as President Bush addressed the conference (full text of remarks), the White House issued a Fact Sheet on the Initiative. The President summarized the achievements of OFBCI:

we have helped level the playing field for faith-based groups and other charities -- especially small organizations that have struggled to compete for funds in the past. We've educated religious groups about their civil rights. We've made the federal grant application process more accessible and transparent. We've trained thousands of federal employees to ensure that government does not discriminate against faith-based organizations. We've ensured that these groups do not have to give up their religious character to receive taxpayer money.

The Justice Department has also released the text of Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey's remarks prepared for the conference. Describing the reexamination of federal policy represented by OFBCI, he said in part:

The Department of Justice has played, and will continue to play, a major role in that reexamination. In doing so, we built upon the principles behind Congress’s Charitable Choice laws and the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence: that government must respect the essential character of faith-based providers; that no one needing help may be turned away because of his or her religion and that no one may be forced into religious practices; and that directly-awarded government funds must be spent on social services, not on religion.

UPDATE: Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,writes a column in the June 28 Washington Post setting out questions on the future of the faith-based initiative that he believes should be asked of the Presidential candidates.

Issues of Religion Largely Absent From Second Day of Sotomayor Hearings

Yesterday, at the second day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, religion, religious freedom and church-state issues received little attention either in questions posed to the nominee or in her answers. Don Byrd, who has been blogging live from the hearings, identifies three exchanges relating to religious issues. The full hearing transcripts are available via the Washington Post. Here are the relevant exchanges:

In questioning Sotomayor about her views on the Second Amendment, Sen. Orin Hatch asked: "OK. As I noted, the Supreme Court puts the Second Amendment in the same category as the First and the Fourth Amendments as pre-existing rights that the Constitution merely codified. Now, do you believe that the First Amendment rights, such as the right to freely exercise religion, the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press, are fundamental rights?" To which Sotomayor replied: "Those rights have been incorporated against the states. The states must comply with them."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, expressing his concern about expansive interpretations of the Constitution said: "And that gets us to the speeches. That broad provision of the Constitution that's taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily pray in school, and on and on and on and on, and that's what drives us here, quite frankly.... [A] lot of us are concerned from the left and the right that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing...."

Sen Diane Feinstein, asking about the overruling of precedent, referred to the Hein case that denied a taxpayer standing to challenge spending by President Bush's faith-based office. She said: "In a rare rebuke of his colleagues, Justice Scalia has sharply criticized Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for effectively overruling the court's precedents without acknowledging that they were doing so. Scalia wrote in the Hein case ... 'Overruling prior precedent is a serious undertaking, and I understand the impulse to take a minimalist approach. But laying just claim to be honoring stare decisis requires more than beating a prior precedent to a pulp and then sending it out to the lower courts weakened, denigrated, more incomprehensible than ever, and yet somehow technically alive....'"

(See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles and Books on Law & Religion, Church-State

From SSRN:

• Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Ball on a Needle: Hein V. Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Future of Establishment Clause Adjudication, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming Feb. 2008).
  
• David B. Kopel, Self-Defense in Asian Religions, (Liberty Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 79, 2007).
  
• David R. Barnhizer & Daniel D. Barnhizer, Myth, Magic and Mystery: Defending the Hidden Order of the Rule of Law, (Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 07-149, Oct. 16, 2007).
  
• John Copeland Nagle, The Evangelical Debate Over Climate Change, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Forthcoming).
  
• JoEllen Lind, What Counts as Neutrality? The Religion and Race Cases Compared, (Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-04).
  
• David B. Kopel, Dhimmitude and Disarmament, (George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, Forthcoming).
  
• Steven Douglas Smith, How Is America 'Divided by God'?, (Mississippi College Law Review, Vol. 27, 2007).

From SmartCILP:

• Ryan Spear, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (Reviewing Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation; and E. O. Wilson, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth), 1 Harvard Law & Policy Review 495-506 (2007).

Recent Books:

• Forrest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State, (Harcourt, Sept. 10, 2007), reviewed by the Deseret Morning News.
  
• D. Michael Lindsay, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evagelicals Joined the American Elite, (Oxford Univ. Press, Aug. 2007), reviewed in the Wall Street Journal.

7th Circuit Holds Taxpayers Lack Standing To Challenge Indiana Legislative Prayer

Yesterday in Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly, (7th Cir., Oct. 30, 2007), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that Indiana taxpayers lack standing to challenge the opening of Indiana legislative sessions with sectarian prayers. The majority applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions-- DaimlerChrsyler Corp. v. Cuno, a 2006 case that held state taxpayer suits in federal court must meet the same criteria as federal taxpayer suits, and Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., a 2007 case that interpreted federal taxpayer standing narrowly. The majority opinion in the 7th Circuit relied on the fact that there was no specific legislative appropriation establishing the program that invited guest ministers to deliver invocations. The majority said that the minimal costs associated with the program have nothing to do with the content of the prayers offered. Judge Wood dissenting argued that the House Rule calling for opening each session with prayer is a legislative act that creates a pocketbook injury to plaintiff taxpayers, and therefore gives them standing.

Covering yesterday's decision, the Indianapolis Star quotes ACLU attorney Ken Falk. He says if the legislature resumes sectarian prayer, his group would be willing to file suit on behalf of a person who would likely have standing-- someone who regularly attends legislative sessions and must listen to the prayers.

Meanwhile the American Jewish Committee issued a release saying that yesterday's decision "is extremely alarming because it denies taxpayers the right to challenge a legislative act that in practice gives preferential access to Christian clergy in determining who shall present a daily legislative prayer." Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter released a statement in support of the decision, saying: "Legislative prayer is a worthy act that I think the State should protect within relevant legal precedents."

Numerous prior postings on the case can be accessed at this link. Links to a recording of the Sept. 2006 oral arguments before the 7th Circuit , and to the earlier opinion staying the lower court's injunction pending appeal, are also available online.

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Frederick Mark Gedicks, God of Our Fathers, Gods for Ourselves: Fundamentalism and Postmodern Belief, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 901-914, 2010).
• Carl H. Esbeck, Taxpayer Standing from Flast to Hein, (Mississippi Law Journal Online, Vol. 80, 2010).
• Karima Bennoune, Remembering the Other's Others: Theorizing the Approach of International Law to Muslim Fundamentalism, (Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 41, pp. 635-698, 2010).
• Saadiya Suleman, Freedom of Religion and Anti Conversion Laws in India: An Overview, (ILI Law Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 106, 2010).
  

From SmartCILP:

• Carolyn Evans, Constitutional Narratives: Constitutional Adjudication on the Religion Clauses in Australia and Malaysia, 23 Emory International Law Review 437-468 (2009).
• Russell Powell, Zakat: Drawing Insights for Legal Theory and Economic Policy from Islamic Jurisprudence, 7 Pittsburgh Tax Review 43-99 (2009).
• Asifa Quraishi, Taking Shari'a Seriously (Reviewing Noah Feldman, The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State), 26 Constitutional Commentary 297-311 (2010).
• John Witte, Jr. & M. Christian Green, Religious Freedom, Democracy, and International Human Rights, 23 Emory International Law Review 583-608 (2009).

7th Circuit: No Taxpayer Standing To Challenge Bald Knob Cross Grant

In Sherman v. State of Illinois, (7th Cir., June 4, 2012), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that activist and atheist Robert Sherman lacks taxpayer standing to challenge a $20,000 grant by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity to Friends of the Cross for restoration of the Bald Knob Cross, an Illinois tourist attraction. Nor can he force Friends of the Cross to return the funds to the state.  Under the Supreme Court's decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., taxpayers have standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge only where funds have been spent pursuant to a legislative mandate, and not where the spending decision was an administrative one under a general appropriation. The 7th Circuit held that the procedure in Illinois under which an administrative agency makes grants from a general appropriation pursuant to patronage-based decisions from legislative political leaders is not the same as a specific legislative appropriation. The court said:

It is not enough to say that Friends was "specifically selected" by the legislative leadership for the grant, as we see no room in the Supreme Court’s decisions for the Realpolitik approach that Sherman urges.

(See prior related posting.)

Elena Kagan Nominated By Obama To Supreme Court [UPDATED]

The White House this morning announced President Barack Obama's nomination of Solicitor General and former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. (Full text of remarks by President and Kagan.) The New York Times today has an extensive background article on Kagan along with the full text of her confirmation hearings for Solicitor General. If confirmed, she will become the third Jewish Justice (along with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer). This will mark the first time that three members of the Jewish faith sit on the Supreme Court at the same time. Also, with Justice Stevens retirement, it will mark the first time that the high court has had no Protestant justices. (See prior posting.) One of the anecdotes recounted by the Times is Kagan's clash, as a 12 or 13 year old, with her rabbi over what the content of her bat mitzvah ceremony would be.

Much of Kagan's published scholarly writings (full list at pp. 52-53 of Hearings) focus on the constitutional issues surrounding the regulation of hate speech. These include: The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion, 1992 Supreme Court Review 29 [Hein-on-Line link]; Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V., 60 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 873 (1993) [LEXIS link]; When A Speech Code Is A Speech Code: The Stanford Policy and the Theory of Incidental Restraints, 29 UC Davis L. Rev. 957 (1996); and Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 413 (1996) [LEXIS link].

During Kagan's confirmation hearings for Solicitor General, she was questioned (Hearings at pp. 97-98) about a memo she wrote as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall suggesting that government funding through the Adolescent Family Life Act for faith-based social service organizations to discourage teen pregnancy was improper because inevitably religious teaching would be injected into the organizations' social services. At her hearings, she rejected her earlier position, saying in written answers that her earlier view was "deeply mistaken" and that she now believes that it is incorrect to presume that a religious organization will use grant funds in an impermissible way to further religion.

Top Ten 2007 Developments In Church-State and Free Exercise of Religion

Here are my nominations for the 2007 Top Ten Developments in Church-State Separation/ Free-Exercise of Religion. A link to one of the postings on each development is also provided. I invite your comments, either concurring or dissenting, on my choices.

1. Religious views of candidates becomes major issue in race for Republican presidential nomination.
2. Supreme Court narrows standing in Establishment Clause cases: Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.
3. Eighth Circuit strikes down state financing of faith-based prison rehabilitation program-- Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries.
4. Suits over property ownership of break-away churches mushroom, particularly as increasing number of Episcopal congregations opt for more conservative affiliations.
5. Christian beliefs on homosexuality lead to opposition to extension of federal Hate Crimes law.
6. Anti-funeral picketing laws directed at Westboro Baptist Church become subject of litigation in several states.
7. Sectarian prayer in Indiana legislature sparks litigation; 7th Circuit panel finds no taxpayer standing in case.
8. State pharmacy boards challenged over rules requiring dispensing of "morning after" pill.
9. Muslim foot basins in university and airport rest rooms provoke controversy.
10. Florida Hebrew language/Jewish culture publicly-financed charter school approved over protests.

For comparison, here are links to my top 10 picks for 2006 and 2005. You may also find it interesting to compare my choices with the 2007 top story picks by the Religion Newswriters as well as Time Magazine's picks for the Top 10 Religion Stories of 2007.

New Director Named For White House Faith-Based Office

Blog from the Capital reports that Jedd Medefind, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, will succeed outgoing director, Jay Hein, who recently resigned for personal family reasons. The new head of OFBCI earlier directed the faith-based office at the Department of Labor. (See prior related posting.)

Souter Announces Retirement From Supreme Court; Here Are His Religion Decisions

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter sent a letter to President Obama today informing him that he plans to retire at the end of the Court term this year. President Obama delivered a statement (full text) in the White House briefing room praising Souter's service on the court. The Washington Post reports on developments.

Here is a list (with links) of the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions on church-state, religious freedom and religious discrimination issues that Justice Souter has written during his 19 years on the Court.

Majority opinions:

• McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
• Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (2002).
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994).

Concurrences:

• Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009).
• Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995).
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
• International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992).
• Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Dissents:

• Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007).
• Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
• Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001).
• Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).
• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997).
• Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).

(Please let me know of any omissions in the list.) [Updated.] [Thanks to Ed Elfrink and Kevin Pybas for additions.]