Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda discusses the controversial designation of Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former Muslim, as “hateful extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Rotunda argues that SPLC should reconsider its criteria for labeling someone an extremist, and he points out ways in which SPLC’s labeling system is inconsistent and misguided.
Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, comments on the recent announcement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of an Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Commission intended to help some clergy sex abuse victims in the New York City Archdiocese. Hamilton describes Dolan’s mixed record on justice for sex abuse victims but hails the latest development as a step in the right direction.
A Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, Marci Hamilton comments on disclosure requirement and the non-discrimination component of California SB-1146. Hamilton argues that religious entities continue to demand the freedom to discriminate and harass, while insisting on calling it “religious liberty.”
University of Illinois dean and law professor Vikram David Amar comments on a recent case that highlights the challenging nature of California’s attempt to protect free speech through its anti-SLAPP statute. Amar describes the background of the case as well as the larger problems that arise when applying the Anti-SLAPP law to discrimination and harassment lawsuits.
Marci Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, explains how the Satanic Temple is fighting the same fight Jehovah’s Witnesses started—to keep the government from imposing tenets of any specific religion on all citizens despite their faith. Hamilton describes the history of this issue in the United States and discusses the current lawsuit involving the Satanic Temple.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on Mississippi’s latest law stigmatizing and marginalizing the LGBTQ community, and compares it to the federal First Amendment Defense Act. Hamilton argues that these divisive and discriminatory laws resemble apartheid in South Africa in that they are purported to be accommodations but in fact are simply immoral and wrong.
Cardozo law professor Marci A. Hamilton describes a relatively new phenomenon of religious leaders coming together to criticize bad acts—even bad acts perpetrated by people who purport to be religious themselves. Hamilton explains how for too long, religious actors seemed beyond reproach no matter what they did, simply by nature of being religious. She expresses great relief that such a period seems to be passing, as evidenced by the widespread support for the LGBTQ community in response to the recent shooting at the Orlando gay club Pulse.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains what is really behind a Catholic bishop’s letter urging Catholics to oppose Pennsylvania HB 1947—a significant bill that would reform statutes of limitations for victims of child abuse and incest thereby giving them greater access to justice.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Court via a per curiam opinion declined to interpret the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as applied to the Affordable Care Act. Hamilton also describes the Do No Harm Act, which is a bill proposed this week that attempts to carve out of RFRA some of its worst incentives and inclinations. While Hamilton argues that RFRA should be repealed outright, she acknowledges that the Do No Harm Act is absolutely a step in the right direction.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on several instances in which the government is chilling scientific inquiry into the question of global warming. Rotunda argues that the marketplace of ideas, rather than the subpoena power of government, should decide what is true or false.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean continues his discussion of the defamation lawsuits filed by Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard and by Washington Nationals infielder Ryan Zimmerman against Al Jazeera America (AJAM). Dean assesses defendant AJAM’s motions to dismiss both cases for failure to describe facts that give rise to a plausible entitlement to relief, a requirement under federal law.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on a recent unusual order by the U.S. Supreme Court asking for supplemental briefing from the parties to the latest religious challenge to Obamacare. In contrast with other commentators who have described the order as “puzzling” or “baffling,” Dorf explains how the Court’s order resembles something federal district courts do on a routine basis: facilitate settlement of the dispute.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton describes two recent events that indicate that the United States remains dedicated to a culture of freedom and tolerance, rather than moving toward theocracy. As Hamilton explains, the federal government has taken action against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for establishing a theocracy on the border of Utah and Arizona, and also for money laundering and food stamp fraud.
Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar examines California’s Proposition 49—which seeks the voters’ approval for the California legislature to ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC—in order to shine light on what might be required to overturn the decision on a federal level. Amar argues that Proposition 49 highlights just how difficult it would be to craft a workable constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers the perspectives of both sides of the controversy over a relatively new California law requiring licensed pregnancy centers to prominently post a notice about the availability of free or low-cost abortion, contraception, and prenatal care. Colb offers a compelling narrative to illustrate each perspective, ultimately concluding that while she personally agrees with one side neither is “right” in a moral sense.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes how freedom—specifically freedom of speech—was recognized as important as far back as ancient Athens, and how it remains important in the United States today, not only for its inherent value but also in setting an example for the rest of the world to use. Rotunda argues that when the United States restricts speech, other countries will use our example to justify their own repression.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains why the pace of new state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts is slower in 2016 than in previous years. Hamilton points out that to pass these bills, legislators have to not only advocate for discrimination, but also for child endangerment—hard policies to sell.
In honor of the recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the Court’s decision in Employment Div. v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority holding that a law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if it is facially neutral and generally applied. Hamilton lauds the decision as striking the right balance between liberty and harm, and between religious diversity and religious tyranny.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the use of religious terms in among the Republican presidential candidates, particularly terms that refer to a specific religio-political world view. Hamilton especially critiques Cruz’s and Rubio’s invocation of Ronald Reagan’s name, pointing out that Reagan tried to bring Americans together in his speeches, even in his references to God.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers an issue on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument: whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from adverse action based on the government’s mistaken belief that the employee was engaged in speech or association. Dorf highlights the nuances of the case and whether there is a meaningful difference between rule-guided conduct and reason-guided conduct.