Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Antony Barone Kolenc, Not 'For God and Country': Atheist Military Chaplains and the Free Exercise Clause, (48 U.S.F. L. Rev. 395 (2014)).
• James M. Oleske, Doric Columns Are Not Falling: Wedding Cakes, the Ministerial Exception, and the Public-Private Distinction, (Maryland Law Review, Vol. 75, 2015, Forthcoming).
• Erwin Chemerinsky & Michele Goodwin, Religion Is Not a Basis for Harming Others, (Georgetown Law Journal, 2015/16, Forthcoming).
• Chad G. Marzen & William Woodyard, Catholic Social Teaching, the Right to Immigrate, and the Right to Regulate Borders: A Proposed Solution for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Based Upon Catholic Social Principles, (September 3, 2015).
• Steven J. Heyman, A Struggle for Recognition: the Controversy Over Religious Liberty, Civil Rights, and Same-Sex Marriage, (First Amendment Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Robert A. Kahn, Rethinking the Context of Hate Speech (Book Review: Michael Herz & Peter Molnar, The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Regulation and Responses), (First Amendment Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Isam M. Shihada,The Backlash of 9/11 on Muslims in Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist, (International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2015)).
• Angela Riley & Kristen A. Carpenter, Owning Red: A Theory of Indian (Cultural) Appropriation, (Forthcoming Texas Law Review (2016)).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. law):

• Paul Andrew Gwaza & Yusuph Moses Garba, Promoting Ethnic and Religious Harmony in Nigeria through Fidelity to Human Rights Principles, (August 30, 2015).
• Bernard M. Levinson, 'Better that You Should Not Vow than that You Vow and Not Fulfill': Qoheleth's Use of Textual Allusion and the Transformation of Deuteronomy's Law of Vows, (in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually. Edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 587. London: T&T Clark, Pages 28–41, 2014).
• Patrick McKinley Brennan, An Essay on Christian Constitutionalism: Building in the Divine Style, for the Common Good(s), (Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Forthcoming).
• Aleksandra Lis & and Tomasz Pietrzykowski, Animals as Objects of Ritual Slaughter: Polish Law after the Battle Over Exceptionless Mandatory Stunning,(August 29, 2015).
• Peter Oliver, Companies and Their Fundamental Rights: A Comparative Perspective, (64 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp 661-696, 2015).

From SmartCILP:

• Symposium: From the Magna Carta to the Montgomery March: The Career of Rights in the Anglo-American Legal Tradition. Articles by Winston P. Nagan, Bradley W. Miller, James R. Stoner, Jr., Adam J. MacLeod, Dwight G. Duncan, David VanDrunen and Michael J. DeBoer. 6 Faulkner Law Review 1-196 (2014).
• Symposium: Pursuit of Happiness in Interreligious Perspective. Articles by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Matthieu Ricard, Ch-Rab Jonathan Sacks, Michael J. Broyde, The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Luke Timothy Johnson, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Khaled Abou El Fadl; response by Vincent J. Cornell. 29 Journal of Law & Religion 5-123 (2014).

Tennessee Judge Says Obergefell Ended State Jurisdiction Over Contested Divorces

A Tennessee Chancery Court Judge, in what can only be described as a fit of judicial pique, last week used a divorce case in which he had substantial doubt about the parties' credibility to launch a verbal attack on the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision and develop a rather far-fetched theory of the decision's impact.  In Bumgardner v. Bumgardner, (TN Chan., Aug. 31, 2015), the court said in part:

With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee' s judiciary must now await the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage. The majority' s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land....

Thus, it appears there may now be, at minimum ... concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts with regard to marriage/divorce litigation. Perhaps even more troubling, however, is that there may also now be a new or enhanced field of jurisprudence— federal preemption by " judicial fiat." ...

[R]egardless of the states' traditional regulation of the area of marriage and divorce..., what actually appears to be the intent and ( more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/ divorce litigation altogether. ...

The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans, corporately, have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/ central institutions such as marriage and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces. Consequently, since only our federal courts are wise enough to address the issues of marriage— and therefore contested divorces— it only follows that this Court' s jurisdiction has been preempted. ...

Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism, implementation of this apparently new "super -federal -judicial" form of benign and benevolent government, termed " krytocracy" by some and " judi-idiocracy" by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court. In any event, it should be noted that the victory of personal rights and liberty over the intrusion of state government provided by the majority opinion in Obergefell is held by this Court only to have divested subject matter jurisdiction from this Court when a divorce is contested.

Huffington Post reports on the decision.

Oregon Judge Creates Legal Defense Fund After Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

In Marion County, Oregon, Circuit Judge Vance Day, former chairman of the state Republican Party, has apparently decided for religious reasons not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.  This has led to inquiries by the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability as to whether Day has violated the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct or the Oregon Constitution.  The Oregonian reports that yesterday the Oregon Government Ethics Commission voted unanimously to approve Day's request to establish a legal defense fund in connection with these inquiries.

Constable Applicant Can Sue Over Religious and Ideological Questions In Job Interview

In Texas, County Constable is an elected position, but where a sitting Constable resigns more than a year before the next scheduled election county commissioners may appoint a new constable to serve until the next election.  In Lloyd v. Birkman, (WD TX, Sept. 2, 2015), a Texas federal district court in a 106-page opinion held that one of the unsuccessful candidates for appointment as County Constable in Williamson County, Texas could pursue various claims against the county and individual commissioners because of the questions asked during the interview process for the position. According to the court:

During the interviews, the candidates received questions on their positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, their political affiliations, the churches that they attended, and their political ideology.

While dismissing some of plaintiff's claims, the court permitted plaintiff to move ahead with his claim that the County committed an unlawful employment practice under Title VII and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act by refusing to hire him because of his religious association, moral views, and ethical beliefs. The court held that the "elected official" exemption does not apply. The court also permitted plaintiff to move ahead against the county and individual defendants on his First Amendment retaliation, freedom of expression and association claims; his 14th Amendment Equal Protection claims; and Texas Constitutional claims. The court rejected plaintiff's violation of privacy claims.

Recalcitrant Kentucky County Clerk Jailed For Contempt; Deputies Will Issue Marriage Licenses

In Ashland, Kentucky today, federal district judge David Bunning ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to be remanded to the custody of U.S. Marshals after she told the court that her religious objections to same-sex marriage prevent her from complying with the court's preliminary injunction ordering her to end her office's refusal to issue marriage licences. (See prior posting.)  According to the ACLU, the court also granted its motion and clarified that the preliminary injunction requires Davis' office to issue marriage licenses to all eligible couples in Rowan County, and not just to the four couples named as plaintiffs in the case.  [UPDATE: Full text of order.] The Lexington Herald-Leader reports on what happened then:

After U.S. marshals took Davis into custody, where she is expected to remain until she agrees to comply with Bunning's order, the judge ordered her six deputy clerks to stand and tell him if they would comply with his order to issue marriage licenses, at the risk of facing their own contempt penalties.

All but one of the deputies — Nathan Davis, Kim Davis' son — said they would obey the judge, some more reluctantly than others..... Bunning said he would not hold the younger Davis in contempt since the rest of his colleagues are willing to obey the law.

So on Friday, the Rowan County clerk's office is set to open without its clerk, for the first time recognizing the Supreme Court's landmark gay marriage decision....

Later in the day, after Bunning established that five of Davis' deputy clerks were willing to issue marriage licenses, Davis' lawyers asked the judge to reconsider sending her to jail. If the people of Rowan County can get a marriage license from the clerk's office, even if it's over Davis' objections, then surely the judge's order is satisfied, the lawyers said.

But Davis scotched that effort by informing Bunning, from a courthouse holding cell, that she would not agree to let her deputies obey the judge's order if she is released. With a shrug, Bunning said Davis will remain incarcerated for at least a week, until he can review how her office operates in her absence. She was taken to the Carter County jail but can free herself by agreeing to comply with his order, Bunning said.

Davis' lawyers released a statement today, saying in part:

All [Davis] asks is to be true to God and her conscience. And the tragedy is that there are simple ways to accommodate her convictions. Just remove her name from the marriage licenses. That’s all she has asked from the beginning. Today’s events will escalate this debate to a new level. This is not the kind of America the Founders envisioned or that most Americans want.”

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, there remains a question of whether licenses issued by deputy clerks are legally valid under Kentucky law if issued without Davis' consent. Judge Bunning said that couples would need to assess that risk on their own.

Kentucky County Clerk Continues To Refuse To Issue Marriage Licences; Contempt Motion Filed

As reported by the New York Times, Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis yesterday continued to refuse to allow her office to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, even though the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend the stay of a district court's ruling against Davis. She told protesters that in refusing to issue licences, she was acting "under God's authority."  In a statement (full text) issued through her lawyers, Davis explained:

To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.

So, as announced by the ACLU, yesterday same-sex couples filed a motion (full text) asking the federal district court to hold Davis in contempt.  Plaintiffs also filed a second motion (full text) asking the district court to clarify that its original preliminary injunction requires Davis to issue marriage licenses not just to the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but to all individuals who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.  The district court has scheduled a contempt hearing for Thursday.

UPDATE: Here is Davis' formal court filing responding to the motion to hold her in contempt.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay Order Requiring Kentucky Clerk To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Davis v. Miller denied an application (full text of order) to stay pending appeal a district court decision requiring a Kentucky count clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The clerk, Kim Davis, has religious objections to same-sex marriage. The application made to Justice Kagan was referred by her to the full Court which denied the stay. New York Times reports on the Supreme Court's decision.

Kentucky Clerk Seeks Supreme Court Stay of Order Requiring Her To Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Today, Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky court clerk who has been refusing to allow her office to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an Emergency Application (full text) to stay the district court's order against her while she appeals to the 6th Circuit.  The application, filed with Justice Kagan who is Circuit Justice for the 6th Circuit, includes a 40-page memorandum of law supporting the request for a stay.  The 6th Circuit has already refused a stay pending appeal. (See prior posting.)  A Liberty Counsel press release reported on the filing.

Suit Challenges Montana's Ban on Polygamy

According to MTN News, a federal court lawsuit was filed yesterday challenging Montana's  ban on polygamous marriages.  Nathan and Vicki Collier were legally married in 2000.  Nathan is now seeking a marriage license to legally marry Christine Parkinson who has also been living as his wife in a polygamous relationship.  The family has a total of eight children.  In July, the Yellowstone County clerk's office denied Nathan a marriage license and asked the county attorney's office for legal advice.  In a letter, the Deputy County Attorney said that the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision does not extend to protect polygamous marriages.  Nathan, Vicki and Christine all filed the lawsuit, representing themselves, arguing that their consensual plural family association is protected by the equal protection, free exercise,  and establishment  clause as well as by the 1st Amendment's protection of speech and association. Montana's bigamy statute imposes a fine of $500 and imprisonment up to 6 months on those convicted.

Brief In Polygamy Appeal Garners Attention

In 2013 in Brown v. Buhman, a Utah federal district court  struck down much of Utah's statute which criminalizes polygamy.  The decision limits the statute's applicability to cases in which an individual has multiple marriage licences, concluding that the statute's broader ban on cohabiting while married to another person is unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) The state of Utah filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit in September 2014.  Yesterday, appellees filed their brief with the 10th Circuit. It is gaining particular attention (as in this Fox 13 piece) because of (1) the celebrity status of appellees -- the polygamous family that is the subject of the popular reality television series "The Sister Wives; (2) the high profile counsel who filed the brief-- law professor and frequent legal commentator Jonathan Turley; and (3) the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision which was handed down subsequent to the district court's ruling on the anti-polygamy statute.  Some opponents of same-sex marriage argued that its legalization would create a "slippery slope" toward other marital arrangements.  The Supreme Court's Obergefell decision is cited extensively in the brief, but appellees emphasize: "This case is about the criminalization, not recognition, of plural relationships."  The full brief may be read here.

6th Circuit Refuses To Stay Injunction Against Recalcitrant Kentucky County Clerk

In Miller v. Davis, (6th Cir., Aug. 26, 2015), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a stay pending appeal of a preliminary injunction (see prior posting) issued against a Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk who has religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The 6th Circuit explains:

As the County Clerk ..., Davis’s official duties include the issuance of marriage licenses. In response to the Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell v. Hodges ..., Davis unilaterally decided that her office would no longer issue any marriage licenses. According to Davis, the issuance of licenses to same-sex marriage couples infringes on her rights under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions as well as the Kentucky Freedom Restoration Act.... The Rowan County Clerk’s office has since refused to issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs, and this action ensued.

The request for a stay pending appeal relates solely to an injunction against Davis in her official capacity. The injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.....

USA Today reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Thursday, Davis' office continued to refuse to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, arguing that the district court's stay remains in effect until Aug. 31.  The district court stayed its preliminary injunction until Aug. 31 or the 6th Circuit issued a ruling. On Thursday afternoon, the clerk's office was temporarily closed for "computer upgrades." Davis is considering filing an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. (CBS News).

Obergefell Will Be Applied Retroactively To Social Security Claims

42 USC Sec. 416(h)(1)(A)(i) provides that whether a person is the spouse of another for Social Security purposes depends on the law of their state of domicile.  Until now this has led the Social Security Administration to deny benefits to same-sex spouses who moved to or lived in a state which did not recognize their marriage.  However, in an Aug. 20 press release, Lambda Legal reported:

Today, in a status conference with Lambda Legal in federal court in Chicago, the Department of Justice announced that the Social Security Administration (SSA) will apply the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark marriage ruling retroactively and process pending spousal benefits claims for same-sex couples who lived in states that did not previously recognize their marriages. According to the Department of Justice, the new policy will apply to previously filed claims still pending in the administrative process or litigation.

Kentucky Clerk, Continuing Fight Against Issuing Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples, Gets Short Reprieve

Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is continuing her battle to obtain a religious exemption from the requirement that her office issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  As previously reported, last week a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring her to end her resistance, at least as to the two same-sex couples suing her.  Davis' office has been refusing to issue marriage licences to anyone.  Yesterday in Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Aug. 17, 2015), the district court refused to stay its injunction while an appeal to the 6th Circuit plays out.  The court found that Davis is not likely to succeed on the merits in the appeal nor is she likely to suffer irreparable harm without a stay. However the court did grant a shorter stay. The court said "realizing that emotions are running high on both sides of the debate," it would grant a stay while Davis appeals the denial of a longer stay during the appeal.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports on these developments and reactions to them:

"Here in Morehead, we have a fairness ordinance (protecting the civil rights of gays and lesbians) that our city council passed unanimously in 2013," said Mary Hargis, a retired state worker holding a sign that read "Obey the law."

"So to have a county official on her own turn around and negate all that progress by making us look like backward, inbred hillbillies, she's just reinforcing all the stereotypes people had about us...

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Aug. 19, the district court, saying the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require it to set an expiration date, issued an order (full text) providing that the stay it issued two days earlier will expire on Aug. 31 unless the 6th Circuit orders something else.

Kentucky Clerk Continues To Refuse To Issue Marriage Licenses, Despite Injunction

Continuing to maintain her religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis yesterday filed with the federal district court a motion (full text) to stay the court's Aug. 12 preliminary injunction pending appeal. (See prior posting.) Meanwhile, as reported by AP, Davis' office continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses. Staff said Davis was on vacation, and others in the office also authorized to issue licenses refused to do so.  The staff handed one couple a Post-it note with the phone number of Davis' lawyers, Liberty Counsel. Attorneys for plaintiffs in the case are considering asking the court to hold Davis in contempt.

Court Upholds Order Against Bakery that Refused Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple

In Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., (CO App., Aug. 13, 2015). a Colorado appellate court, in a 64-page opinion, affirmed the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (see prior posting) that a bakery's refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violates Colorado's public accommodation law, and that the Commission's cease and desist order does not infringe the bakery owner's free exercise or free speech rights. The court rejected the bakery's claim that its refusal to create the cake was "because of" its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to plaintiffs' sexual orientation. It held that because same-sex marriage is entered into only (or predominately) by gays, lesbians and bisexuals, the conduct cannot be divorced from status.

The court rejected defendants' argument that requiring them to create the wedding cake would amount to unconstitutionally compelled speech:

such conduct, even if compelled by the government, is not sufficiently expressive to warrant First Amendment protections.

Finally the court concluded that the cease and desist order did not violate the Christian owner's free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions because the Colorado Law Against Discrimination is a neutral law of general applicability. Colorado Springs Gazette reports on the decision.

Guam Legislature Passes Marriage Equality and LGBT Employment Discrimination Laws

Pacific Daily News reports that the Guam legislature yesterday passed the Guam Marriage Equality Act (full text), aligning the U.S. Territory's laws with the a district court's decision in June specifically striking down Guam's same-sex marriage ban. (See prior posting.)

The legislature this week also passed the Guam Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2015 (full text), adding bans on employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression; sexual orientation; and veteran or military status. The law includes an exemption for religious and educational institutions that are exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act. HRC Blog has more on the new law.

Court Says Kentucky Clerk Cannot Refuse To Issue Marriage Licences

In Miller v. Davis, (ED KY, Aug. 12, 2015), a Kentucky federal district court granted a preliminary injunction barring Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis from continuing her policy of refusing to issue all marriage licenses because of her religious objections to issuing licences to same-sex couples.  The injunction enjoins Davis from applying the policy to future marriage license requests submitted by plaintiffs in the case.

Rejecting free exercise, free speech, religious test and Kentucky Religious Freedom Act arguments, the court held:

Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.  AP reports on the decisionl  Davis immediately filed a Notice of Appeal (full text). [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Kansas Federal District Court Implements Obergefell Holding

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Obergefell case that same-sex marriages must be recognized, lower courts still need to tie up loose to make the ruling effective nationwide.  In Marie v. Mosier, (D. KA, Aug. 10, 2015), a Kansas federal district court issued a declaratory judgment that Kansas’ same-sex marriage laws (and related policies) violate the Constitution and thus are void. However in light of claims by Kansas officials that the state is voluntarily complying with the Obergefell holding, the court delayed issuing a permanent injunction to determine whether the issue is moot, saying:

In the Court’s view, the prudent course of action is to let defendants finish updating their policies and practices to conform to Obergefell’s new rule of constitutional law. The Court thus defers, for now, the portion of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion seeking injunctive relief. Should subsequent events reveal that the Court’s hopefulness about Kansas officials’ pledge to comply with Obergefell is misplaced, plaintiffs may supplement their motion for summary judgment on their claims for injunctive relief...

SCOTUSblog discusses the opinion.

Ohio Supreme Court Board Issues Advisory Opinion On Judges' Refusal To Perform Same-Sex Marriages

The Ohio Supreme Court's Board of Professional Conduct has issued an advisory opinion on Judicial Performance of Civil Marriages of Same-Sex Couples.  In Opinion 2015-1 (Aug. 7, 2015), the Board concluded:

A judge who performs civil marriages may not refuse to perform same-sex marriages while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, based upon his or her personal, moral, and religious beliefs, acts contrary to the judicial oath of office and Jud. Cond. R. 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.11, and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(g).

A judge who takes the position that he or she will discontinue performing all marriages, in order to avoid marrying same-sex couples based on his or her personal, moral, or religious beliefs, may be interpreted as manifesting an improper bias or prejudice toward a particular class. The judge’s decision also may raise reasonable questions about his or her impartiality in legal proceedings where sexual orientation is at issue and consequently would require disqualification under Jud. Cond. R. 2.11.

The Board refused to address questions regarding assignment or rotation of judges conducting marriages at a court.

Yesterday's Columbus Dispatch reported on the advisory opinion. The issue was highlighted in Ohio last month when Toledo Municipal Court Judge C. Allen McConnell's bailiff told a same-sex couple who had been issued a marriage license that McConnell does not do "these types of marriages." (See prior posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• Rex Ahdar, A Real Threat or a Mere Shadow? School Chaplaincy Programs and the Secular State, (University of Queensland Law Journal, vol 33. no 1 (2014): 29-41).
• Joshua C. Tate, Episcopal Power and Royal Jurisdiction in Angevin England, (Studies in Canon Law and Common Law in Honor of R.H. Helmholz, Robbins Collection Studies in Comparative Legal History (Troy L. Harris ed., 2015), pp. 15-26).
• Jayanth K. Krishnan & Patrick W. Thomas, Surveying Key Aspects of Sociolegal Scholarship on India: An Overview, (Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2015, Forthcoming)).
• Christopher Tomlins, Debt, Death, and Redemption: Toward a Soterial-Legal History of the Turner Rebellion, (David S. Cowan and Dan Wincott, editors, Exploring the Legal in Socio-Legal Studies (London: Palgrave-Macmillan), January 2016, Forthcoming).
• Erwin Chemerinsky & Michele Goodwin, Compulsory Vaccination Laws are Constitutional, (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110, 2015/16 Forthcoming).
• Christopher C. Lund, Leaving Disestablishment to the Political Process, (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, Vol. 10, p. 45, 2014).
• Sarah Beth D'Alessandro, Commerce in Human Organs: A Study of Jewish Legal Themes Underlying a Contemporary Controversy, (August 5, 2015).
• Daniel Golebiewski, Roman Catholic Traditions and LGBT Rights in Poland and France, (Rights for All? Sexual Orientation, Religious Traditions, and the Challenge of Inclusion The Center for International Human Rights, John Jay College, February 2015).
• Hillel Y. Levin, Allan J. Jacobs & Kavita Arora, To Accommodate or Not to Accommodate: (When) Should the State Regulate Religion to Protect the Rights of Children and Third Parties?, (UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-24 (Aug. 2015)).

From SSRN (Marriage):

• Robin Fretwell Wilson & Anthony Michael Kreis, Embracing Compromise: Marriage Equality and Religious Liberty in the Political Process, (Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, Vol. 15, No. 485, 2014).
• Doron M. Kalir, Same-Sex Marriage and Jewish Law: Time for a New Paradigm? (Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 15-284, Aug. 2015).
• Toni M. Massaro, The Lawfulness of the Same-Sex Marriage Decisions: Charles Black on Obergefell, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 15-27 (July 2015).

From SSRN (Islam):

• Arolda Elbasani & Olivier Roy, Islam in the Post-Communist Balkans: Alternative Pathways to God, (Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Online First, Forthcoming).
• Arolda Elbasani, Islam and Democracy at the Fringes of Europe: The Role of Useful Historical Legacies, (Politics and Religion 8 (2), 334-357, 2015).
• J. Robert Brown, Secularism, Sharia, and the Turkish Financial Markets, (Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2015).

From SmartCILP and elsewhere:

• Dallan F. Flake, Bearing Burdens: Religious Accommodations that Adversely Affect Coworker Morale, 76 Ohio State Law Journal 169-216 (2015).
• Leslie C. Griffin, Hobby Lobby: The Crafty Case that Threatens Women's Rights and Religious Freedom, [Abstract], 42 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 641-693 (2015).
• Eric Rassbach, Is Hobby Lobby Really a Brave New World? Litigation Truths About Religious Exercise by For-Profit Organizations, [Abstract], 42 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 625-639 (2015).
• Gerald Walpin, Five Justices Have Transformed the First Amendment's Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion, 31 Touro Law Review 187-220 (2015).
• Richard W. Garnett, John D. Inazu & Michael W. McConnell, How to Protect Endangered Religious Groups You Admire, Christianity Today, (Aug. 4, 2015).
• Dodd-Frank, the Financial Crisis, and a Christian View of Financial Markets. Articles by Paul J. Foley, Tory L. Lucas and student Joshua C. Dawson; abstract by Rodney Chrisman; note by Kaitlyn E. Evans. 9 Liberty University Law Review 445-595 (2015).