Former Miss California USA Sues Claiming Religious Discrimination

Former Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, yesterday filed a lawsuit in a California state court against Miss California pageant officials accusing them of religious discrimination, as well as defamation , disclosure of private medical facts and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Prejean's title was taken away in June 2009, allegedly for breach of contract. The complaint (full text) in Prejean v. Lewis, (Los Angeles Superior Ct., filed 8/31/2009), alleges in part that defendants violated California's Unruh Civil righs Act (CA Civil Code Sec. 51) by conspiring to have Prejean dismissed as Miss California USA because she insisted on publicly expressing her religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. Entertainment Tonight reports on the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

Ted Kennedy Laid To Rest; His Complex Relationship With Catholic Church Is Explored

A funeral mass (background) was recited yesterday for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Boston Herald), with Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, archbishop of Boston, in attendance (Boston Globe). Kennedy has been described by Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times as "America's most famous Catholic politician and its most visible link to the bonds of identity and solidarity that have for so long joined Catholics to the Democratic Party." President Obama delivered a eulogy (full text) at the funeral mass, held at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in Boston. As Kennedy was buried, the media carried a number of stories about his complicated relationship with the Catholic Church. Kennedy's support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage has drawn strong criticism from many Catholic leaders, and some pro-life advocates have argued that his stance on abortion should have disqualified him from having a public Catholic funeral mass. (Lifesite News).

At Kennedy's burial service at Arlington National Cemetery, retired Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick read long excerpts from a letter that Kennedy sent to Pope Benedict XVI last month and from the Pope's response. (Politics Daily.) The letter from Kennedy, hand delivered by President Obama during his July meeting with the Pope, asked the Pontiff to pray for the Senator's health. In the letter, Kennedy also reiterated his commitment to health care reform and said he believes in conscience protection for Catholics in the health care field. The Pope's response through a senior Vatican official, two weeks later, expressed the Pontiff's concern for Kennedy and said in part: "His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father." Meanwhile Time Magazine notes while the Vatican's official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has reported on Kennedy's death, noticeably absent is a statement directly from the Pope.

Saskatchewan Court Says Marriage Commissioner May Not Refuse To Perform Gay Weddings

In Nichols v. M.J., (Sask. Q.B., July 17, 2009), the Queen's Bench for the Canadian province of Saskatchewan upheld a decision of the province's Human Rights Commission that a government marriage commissioner illegally discriminated against a gay man when the commissioner refused to perform a marriage ceremony for him. The marriage commissioner, Orville Nichols (who is a Baptist), asserted religious objections to performing same-sex marriages. The court, however, rejected his claim, saying:

M.J. and other members of the public do not have to depend upon encountering a marriage commissioner who has no moral or religious objection to performing a same sex marriage in order to gain access to an entitlement to be married without discrimination. Regardless of the religious basis of Mr. Nichols’ views, his acting on them in this manner constitutes discrimination in the provision of a public service on the basis of sexual orientation. Any accommodation of Mr. Nichols’ religious views, if the duty to accommodate exists, is not the responsibility of those who seek the services that he is legally empowered to provide. If any accommodation is due to Mr. Nichols for his religious views, it must be accomplished without risking what occurred here – where the complainant sought a service and was expressly denied it on the basis of his sexual orientation....

I am sympathetic to the argument that a public official acting as government is at the same time an individual whose religious views demand respect. However, a public official has a far greater duty to ensure that s/he respects the law and the rule of law. A marriage commissioner is, to the public, a representative of the state. She or he is expected by the public to enforce, observe and honour the laws binding his or her actions. If a marriage commissioner cannot do that, she or he cannot hold that position.

Reporting on the decision, the Regina (SK) Leader-Post says that provincial officials will still move ahead with plans to obtain a Court of Appeal ruling on the constitutionality of a proposed law that would exempt marriage commissioners from performing same-sex marriages if they object to doing so for religious reasons. (See prior related posting.)

Recent Articles of Interest

From SSRN:

• William W. Van Alstyne, Religion in the Workplace: A Report on the Layers of Relevant Law in the United States, (Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2009).
• Reid K. Weisbord & Peter DeScioli, The Effects of Donor Standing on Philanthropy: Insights from the Psychology of Gift-Giving, (Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, January 2010).

From SmartCILP:

• Charlton C. Copeland, God-Talk in the Age of Obama: Theology and Religious Political Engagement, 86 Denver University Law Review 663-691 (2009).
• Josh Goodman, Divine Judgment: Judicial Review of Religious Legal Systems in India and Israel, 32 Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 477-528 (2009).
• Robin Fretwell Wilson, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Life After Prop 8, 14 NEXUS 101-111 (2008-2009).

State Agency Removes Website Links To "Open and Affirming" Churches

Connecticut's Department of Children and Families has removed from its website links to "open and affirming" churches-- i.e. churches that welcome gays, lesbians and persons who are bisexual and transgender. Yesterday's Hartford Courant reports that the links were removed after the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), a group that opposes same-sex marriage, threatened to sue. It claimed that placing the links on the state agency's website violates the Establishment Clause as well as parental rights. FIC also asked the Department to make sure that the organization training social workers on issues faced by GLBT youth does not provide information on "open and affirming" churches in its training sessions.

Court Enjoins Community College's Sexual Harassment Policy As Overbroad

In Lopez v. Candaele, (CD CA, July 10, 2009), a California federal district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Los Angeles Community College District’s Sexual Harassment Policy. The court found that the policy is overbroad, prohibiting a substantial amount of protected speech. The case grew out of a class presentation by plaintiff, in which he spoke about his religion-based opposition to same-sex marriage. His professor called him a "fascist bastard," cut his speech short, and did not enter a grade on his evaluation sheet. (See prior posting.) However ultimately plaintiff was awarded a grade of A in the course. Alliance Defense Fund issued a release applauding the ruling, saying: "Christian students shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs at a public college."

Massachusetts Sues Challenging Constitutionality of DOMA

Yesterday the state of Massachusetts filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The complaint (full text) in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (D MA, filed 7/8/2009), alleges that in enacting the law, the federal government violated the 10th Amendment and exceeded its powers under the Spending Clause. The complaint alleges in part:

In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the first state to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage..... Congress’s decision to enact a federal definition of marriage rejected the long-standing practice of deferring to each state's definition of marriage and contravened the constitutional designation of exclusive authority to the states. From its founding until DOMA was enacted in 1996, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the exclusive prerogative of the states and an essential aspect of each state's sovereignty, and consistently deferred to state definitions when the marital status of an individual was used as a marker of eligibility for rights or protections under federal law.

Now, because of Section 3 of DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships are both denied access to critically important rights and benefits and not held to the same obligations and responsibilities arising out of marriage or based on marital status. DOMA precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of important protections that directly affect them and their families, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments. In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.

The Boston Globe reports on the lawsuit. State Attorney General Martha Coakley's office has issued a press release along with links to a transcript and recording of yesterday's press conference announcing the action.

Religious Conservatives Criticize Obama's Extension of Some Benefits To Gay Couples

Yesterday President Barack Obama signed a Memorandum (full text and full text of remarks at signing) extending certain benefits to same-sex domestic partners of government employees. (New York Times.) The White House also released an official statement along with the memorandum. Among the benefits made available are use of sick leave to care for their domestic partners or their partners' children; coverage of partners under long-term care insurance; and providing equal treatment for partners of American Foreign Service officers in use of medial facilities and visitation rights in case of an emergency. He also called for the Office of Personnel Management to conduct further reviews of possible benefits and of non-discrimination provisions.

Obama indicated that current federal law precludes him from going further by executive action, but announced his support for the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act that would extend the full range of benefits-- including health care and retirement benefits--to same-sex couples as are enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Not surprisingly, a number of conservative Christian groups, as in a press release from the Family Research Council, have criticized the President's action. Dan Gilgoff reports that they contend the Memorandum essentially elevates same-sex partnerships to a status that approximates marriage, in violation of at least the spirit of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

DC Elections Board Rejects Referendum On Recognition of Same-Sex Marriages From Elsewhere

Last month, the D.C. City Council, over the opposition of local ministers and others, passed an ordinance recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (See prior posting.) Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville (MD) led a group of largely African-American clergy seeking to place a referendum on the new law before D.C. voters. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics has ruled the referendum illegal because under D.C. law no referendum can be used to authorized discrimination that is prohibited by the D.C. Human Rights Act.

The Board, in In re Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, (DC Bd. Elec., June 15, 2009), ruled that: "The Council has, through the Act, expressed its determination to clearly state that discrimination against same-sex couples who are validly married elsewhere is prohibited. Simply stated, the Act means that the HRA now requires the District government and all public accommodations, inter alia, to refrain from discriminating against same-sex couples who are validly married elsewhere." The Board has also posted online the full text of legal comments it received on the proposed referendum.

UPDATE: On Wednesday, on behalf of several D.C. voters, the Alliance Defense Fund filed an appeal of the decision by the Board of Elections & Ethics. (Press release.) The complaint (full text) in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics, (DC Super. Ct., filed 6/18/2009), claims that the "refusal to afford same-sex couples the status of 'marriage' does not run afoul of the DC-HRA."

Recent Articles Of Interest

From SSRN:

• Jeff Redding, Proposition 8 and the Future of American Same-Sex Marriage Activism, (Nexus, Vol. 14, p. 113, 2009).
• Anne Twomey, The Australian Crowns - Changing the Rules of Succession, (Quadrant, Vol. 53, No. 6, pp. 44-47, 2009).
• Barry McDonald, Getting Beyond Religion as Science: 'Unstifling' Worldview Formation in American Public Education, (Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 66, 2009).
• Amy Lavine & Patricia Salkin, God and the Land: A Holy War Between Religious Exercise and Community Planning and Development, (Albany Government Law Review, Vol. 2, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Donald Kerwin, Toward a Catholic Vision of Nationality, 23 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 197-207 (2009).
• Craig W. Mandell, Tough Pill to Swallow: Whether Catholic Institutions Are Obligated Under Title VII to Cover Their Employees' Prescription Contraceptives, 8 University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 199-239 (2008).
• Lucian C. Martinez, Jr., Sovereign Impunity: Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Bar Lawsuits Against the Holy See in Clerical Sexual Abuse Cases?, 44 Texas International Law Journal 123-155 (2008).
• Nicholas A. Mirkay, Losing Our Religion: Reevaluating the Section 501(c)(3) Exemption of Religious Organizations That Discriminate, 17 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 715-764 (2009).
• Mark Strasser, Repudiating Everson: On Buses, Books, and Teaching Articles of Faith, 78 Mississippi Law Journal 567-636 (2009).

NH Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill After New Religious Protections Added

Yesterday the New Hampshire House and Senate enacted changes to the same-sex marriage bill that the legislature had already passed, going along with demands of Gov. John Lynch for further protections for religious institutions as a condition of his signing the law. (See prior posting.) The Concord Union Leader reports that the governor then signed the bill yesterday afternoon. It takes effect Jan. 1. Two amendments to the already-passed HB 436 were placed into HB 73 and HB 310. The new changes affirm that religious organizations retain control over who may marry within the faith and they may not be required to participate in a marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. No religious organization is required to provide in connection with a marriage that violates its religious beliefs any marriage counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals. Finally, religious fraternal benefit societies need not provide insurance where it would violate the society's free exercise of religion.

Connecticut Diocese Sues To Avoid Registration As Lobbyist

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport on Friday filed a federal lawsuit against Connecticut's Office of State Ethics seeking to enjoin the Office from taking action to force the Diocese to register with the state as a lobbyist. Catholic Online reports that the state ethics office wrote the Diocese raising questions after the Diocese took part in a rally in March opposing Raised Bill 1098 that would have forced reorganization of financial oversight in Catholic parishes (see prior posting). The state also questioned a posting on the Diocese's website urging its members to oppose another bill relating to same-sex marriage. The complaint (full text) in Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Jones, (D CT, filed 5/29/2009), contends that the state's action violates the Diocese's constitutional rights of speech and assembly, its free exercise and equal protection rights, and violates the establishment clause. The Diocese also filed a Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Prop 8; Some Gay-rights Activists Question Strategy

The New York Times reports that at a news conference yesterday, David Boies and Theodore Olson-- attorneys best known as opponents in the Bush v. Gore litigation in 2000-- announced that they are jointly representing two couples who have filed a lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco challenging California's Proposition 8 on federal constitutional grounds. The complaint (full text) in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, (ND CA, filed 5/22/2009), asks the court to enter a declaratory judgment and to enjoin enforcement or application of Proposition 8, arguing that it violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that "California relegates same-sex unions to the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership."

A number of gay rights activists criticized the filing of the lawsuit, arguing that it could backfire strategically. Yesterday's Examiner says these critics fear that the current Supreme Court would rule against the challenge, and that this would then undermine attempts to get state courts to protect gay marriage under state constitutions. These critics point to another case moving through the federal courts challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which they say is a better first step toward getting federal courts to protect same-sex marriage.

California High Court Upholds Proposition 8, But Validates Pre-Prop 8 Marriages

The California Supreme Court today in Strauss v. Horton, (CA Sup. Ct., May 26, 2009), rejected a challenge to voters' approval of Proposition 8, thereby upholding the California constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. In a 6-1 decision, the court held that Proposition 8 was an "amendment" and not a "revision" of the state constitution, and therefore properly approved in an initiative process. However same-sex marriages entered into before the effective date of Proposition 8 will remain valid.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice George held that: Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to privacy, due process and equal protection provision in the state constitution, "reserving the official designation of the term 'marriage' for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

Justices Kennard and Werdegar each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Kennard also joined the majority opinion while Justice Werdegar only agreed with the result, but rejected much of the majority's analysis. Justice Moreno dissented arguing that Proposition 8 is a "revision" of the Constitution because it "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution" by requiring discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification. The Court has also issued a press release describing the opinions. The New York Times reports on the decision.

Same-Sex Marriage Not Yet A Done Deal In New Hampshire

As previously reported, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch told the legislature that he would sign the same-sex marriage bill it had passed only if it made changes to grant stronger protections to religious institutions. According to yesterday's Concord Union Leader, the state Senate on Wednesday agreed to the governor's requested changes by a vote of 14-10. However later in the day, the state House of Representatives in a close vote (188-186) refused to adopt the Governor's changes, and by a larger vote (207-168) asked the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

Meanwhile, as gay marriage seems to be gaining momentum in state legislatures, Pew Forum yesterday published a Q&A with Professors Ira "Chip" Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, titled: A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion.

New Hampshire Governor Will Sign Same-Sex Marriage Bill Only If New Religious Protections Are Added

New Hampshire's Governor John Lynch yesterday released a statement saying that despite his personal views on the subject, he will sign the same-sex marriage legislation passed by the state legislature last week only if legislators first amend it to provide more protections for religious institutions. Otherwise he will veto it. NECN News has posted both a transcript and a video of his statement, which says in part:

... I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex couples that ... a civil law that differentiates between their committed relationships and those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the legitimacy of their families. I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.

Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections. That is what I believe we must do today. But ... we must act to protect both the liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.

The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their fundamental religious beliefs. But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual marriage ceremony.... [T]he laws of other states, including Vermont and Connecticut, ... go further in protecting religious institutions.... This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions. This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these provisions, I will veto it.

(See prior related posting.)

NY Assembly Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill; Fate In Senate Unclear

The New York Assembly on Tuesday passed, by a vote of 89-52, A07732, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage. The bill also provides that no member of the clergy is required to solemnize a marriage. The bill now goes to the state Senate where, according to NY1 News, it is unclear whether it will pass. Tuesday's New York Times says that conservative religious groups are mobilizing to fight against passage of the bill.

Maine Is 5th State To Permit Gay Marriage; New Hampshire Bill Sent To Governor

Maine yesterday became the 5th state to authorize same-sex marriage as Gov. John Baldacci signed LD 1020, "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." The Brunswick (ME) Times Record reports that the bill moved quickly through the state legislature. Last Thursday the State Senate approved it by a vote of 21-14, the House followed on Tuesday with an 89-57 vote, and the Senate gave its final approval yesterday by a vote of 21-13. While authorizing same-sex marriage, the new law goes on to provide:

This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.

AP reports that opponents of the new law say they will challenge it through a statewide referendum. Seacoast Online says that Rev. Bob Emerich of the Jeremiah Project in Plymouth (ME) will be working with the Portland Catholic diocese and other groups to obtain the 55,087 signatures needed to get a referendum measure on the statewide ballot.

Later yesterday, the New Hampshire legislature also passed a bill permitting same-sex marriage. (CNN). HB 436 provides however that:

Members of the clergy as described in RSA 457:31 or other persons otherwise authorized under law to solemnize a marriage shall not be obligated or otherwise required by law to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by part I, article 5 of the New Hampshire constitution.

The state Senate last week approved the bill by a vote of 13-11. Yesterday the House approved it by a vote of 178-167. The Concord Monitor says that it is unclear whether or not Gov. John Lynch will veto the bill. In the past he has said that his personal views are opposed to same-sex marriage.

New Hampshire Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill Different From House Version

Yesterday, the New Hampshire Senate passed by a vote of 13-11 a bill authorizing same-sex marriage in the state. The House also approved a same-sex marriage bill last month, but differences between the Senate and House versions mean that the bill must now go back to the House for its approval. HB436, as amended by the Senate, provides:

Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender. Each party to a marriage shall be designated "bride," "groom," or "spouse."

The bill also provides that a marriage may be solemnized either in a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony, and that neither clergy nor civil officials shall be required to officiate at any civil of religious marriage ceremony that would violate their free exercise of religion. Baptist Press reports that the Senate amendment clearly recognizing a difference between religious and civil ceremonies convinced Senate Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Deborah Reynolds to vote for the bill in the full Senate after opposing it in committee.

Under the bill, previous civil unions will be recognized as marriages in the state. AP reports that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has said that the crucial issue is providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as to others, and that the state's existing civil unions law does that. Thus it is unclear whether the Governor will sign the same-sex marriage bill even if both houses agree on it.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Seth Barrett Tillman, Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact And Fiction: A Response to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture and Essay, (Jan. 27, 2009).
• Paolo G. Carozza & Daniel Philpott, The Catholic Church, Human Rights and Democracy: Convergence and Conflict with the Modern State, (in The Cross, the Crescent and the Ballot Box: Catholic and Islamic Dialogue on the Rule of Law and International Democracy Promotion, Peter Schraeder, ed., Forthcoming; Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 09-15).
• Cynthia Koploy, Free Exorcise Clause? Whether Exorcism Can Survive America's "New Neutrality", (Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Kenneth W. Starr, Our Libertarian Court: Bong Hits and the Enduring Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian Colloquy, (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2008).
• Linda C. McClain, Red Versus Blue (and Purple) States and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate: From Values Polarization to Common Ground?, (University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, Vol. 77, p. 416, 2008).
• Melissa E. Murray, Marriage Rights and Parental Rights: Parents, the State, and Proposition 8, (Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Forthcoming).
• Cosmin Dariescu & Nadia Cerasela Dariescu, Rabbinical Chancery in Romania - An Alternative to the State Organized Courts in Solving Family Litigations?, (International Society of Family Law: Regional Conference in Israel, June 7-9, 2009).
• Ann Laquer Estin, Unofficial Family Law, (February 1, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Abeer Ghazi Jarrar, Combating a Religious Radical Ideology v. Suppressing Islamic Opposition: Jordan’s Approach to Counterterrorism, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).
• Sigit Ardianto, From Secularism into Modified Pluralism: Comprehensive Application of John Rawls’s Justice as Fairness Theory in Defining State and Religion Relationship, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, April 14, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Geoffrey C. Hazard, Not the City of God: The Multiplicity of Wrongs and Rules, 42 Akron Law Review 1-11 (2009).

Recent Books:

• Jon A. Shields, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, (Princeton University Press, 2009), reviewed by the New York Times.
• ABA Section of State and Local Government Law, RLUIPA Reader: Religious Land Uses, Zoning and the Courts, (Michael S. Giaimo & Lora A. Lucero, eds.) (April 2009).