The reference to Washington's Constitution providing greater free exercise protection is from the decision in First Covenant Church v. Seattle, a case in which the State Supreme Court held (for a second time) that the unwanted landmark designation of a church building violated the Church's free exercise rights. The US Supreme Court sent the case back to the State Supreme Court a few weeks after the Smith decision in 1990 for reconsideration in light of Smith. A year after reargument, the Washington State Supreme Court issued an opinion, the first 2/3 of which directly challenged the Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in its Smith decision, and then went on for the balance to anchor its own decision in the State Constitution as providing greater protection.
It could be that the USSC has engaged in a delayed "got you back." [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [Also: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Visit our Web site at http://www.QueensChurches.org/ Rev. N. J. L'Heureux, Jr. Executive Director Queens Federation of Churches 86-17 105th Street Richmond Hill, New York 11418-1597 Voice (718) 847-6764 FAX (718) 847-7392 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:30 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights I was particularly pleased with footnote 8 in the majority opinion that pointed out that Washington provides greater free exercise protection than the federal constitution. Conceptually, this resonates with the argument that there an important connection or equilibrium in interpreting the religion clauses such that the rigorous enforcement of one reinforces and justifies the rigorous enforcement of the other. Pragmatically, it supports the rhetorical argument that a state that uses the play in the joints it is allowed to impose more restrictions on the funding of religious institutions and activities than the federal constitution requires ought to provide comparably greater protection to religious institutions and activities on the free exercise side of the constitutional equation as well. Alan Brownstein UC Davis _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
