Call for Nominations: Harold Berman Prize for Excellence in Law & Religion

[Michael A Helfand]

Dear Listmates,

Below please find a Call for Nominations for the AALS Law & Religion
Section's newly established Harold Berman Prize for Excellence in Law &
Religion Scholarship.  The details are below, but please note that
nominations must be in by 5pm PST on August 15th, 2016.

Hope you're all enjoying the summer.

Best,
Michael

Michael A. Helfand
Associate Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law
Associate Director, Pepperdine University Glazer Institute for Jewish
Studies
24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90263
(310) 506-7694
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=760898
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mahelfand

*Call for Nominations: Harold Berman Prize for Excellence in Law & Religion
Scholarship*

Starting this year, the AALS Section on Law & Religion will award the
"Harold Berman Prize" to recognize scholarly excellence by an untenured
professor at an AALS Member School.

The Prize will be given to the author of an article, published between July
15, 2015 and July 15, 2016, which has made an outstanding scholarly
contribution to the field of law and religion.

The recipient must be a tenure-track faculty member at an AALS Member
School and must have served no more than 6 years as a faculty member as of
the date of the awarding of the Prize. The Prize will be awarded at the
2017 AALS Annual Meeting, scheduled for January 4-7, 2017.

Nominations should be sent by email to Professor Michael Helfand (
michael.helf...@pepperdine.edu) and must be received by 5pm PST on August
15th, 2016. Nominations should include the full name, title and contact
information for the nominated scholar, in addition to a PDF version of the
published version of the article to be considered for the Prize. There is a
limit of three nominations per nominator.Self-nominations are welcomed.

Questions about the Prize should be addressed to Professor Richard Albert (
richard.alb...@bc.edu), Chair of the Section on Law & Religion.

Prize Committee: Zak Calo (Hamad Bin Khalifa / Valparaiso) Rick Garnett
(Notre Dame) Michael Helfand (Pepperdine) Lisa Roy Shaw (Mississippi)

**
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Mississippi AG Hood declines to appeal adverse decision on HB1523

[Michael Worley]

(of course, I think he should have appealed, but that is another story)

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Michael Worley  wrote:

> Thank you.  This is what I thought you meant, and it is internally
> consistent with what I know of your view on such issues.
>
> My personal position is that he could have conveyed the same message in a
> way that served good purposes-- calming religious tensions-- without using
> the reasoning as part of his core decisions.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Marty Lederman 
> wrote:
>
>> Michael:  Thank you for asking.  Of course I have no objection to protecting
>> the least among us, let alone to the Golden Rule.  Those are wonderful
>> aspirations and guides to behavior, and they might even appropriately be
>> considered in government decision-making, including even in deciding when
>> to concede a lawsuit.  But this is a case of an Attorney General publicly
>> suggesting that an official decision of his was made by virtue of "Jesus's
>> directive."  And in an Establishment Clause case, at that!
>>
>> I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional for a state official to
>> make decisions based upon injunctions of religious authorities (or, at
>> least, that's not typically justiciable); but I do think it is
>> inappropriate to publicly invoke such religious authority in explaining the
>> basis for one's action on behalf of the state.  I've been involved in many
>> such decisions, and can't imagine any government official so much as
>> proposing to invoke Jesus's authority as the basis for an appeal decision,
>> let alone actually announcing it.
>>
>> If, however, my reaction is not universally shared (or my experiences are
>> less-than-universal), please feel free to ignore the final word of my post
>> -- suffice it to say that, at a minimum, an AG invoking Jesus certainly is
>> noteworthy, whatever one thinks of its propriety.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Michael Worley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman <
>>> lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
 carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
 love thy neighbor."

 Sigh.

 On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
 howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:

> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he
> will not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>
> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>
> --
>
>
>> ___
>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Worley
> J.D., Brigham Young University
>



-- 
Michael Worley
J.D., Brigham Young University
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Mississippi AG Hood declines to appeal adverse decision on HB1523

[Michael Worley]

Thank you.  This is what I thought you meant, and it is internally
consistent with what I know of your view on such issues.

My personal position is that he could have conveyed the same message in a
way that served good purposes-- calming religious tensions-- without using
the reasoning as part of his core decisions.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Marty Lederman 
wrote:

> Michael:  Thank you for asking.  Of course I have no objection to protecting
> the least among us, let alone to the Golden Rule.  Those are wonderful
> aspirations and guides to behavior, and they might even appropriately be
> considered in government decision-making, including even in deciding when
> to concede a lawsuit.  But this is a case of an Attorney General publicly
> suggesting that an official decision of his was made by virtue of "Jesus's
> directive."  And in an Establishment Clause case, at that!
>
> I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional for a state official to
> make decisions based upon injunctions of religious authorities (or, at
> least, that's not typically justiciable); but I do think it is
> inappropriate to publicly invoke such religious authority in explaining the
> basis for one's action on behalf of the state.  I've been involved in many
> such decisions, and can't imagine any government official so much as
> proposing to invoke Jesus's authority as the basis for an appeal decision,
> let alone actually announcing it.
>
> If, however, my reaction is not universally shared (or my experiences are
> less-than-universal), please feel free to ignore the final word of my post
> -- suffice it to say that, at a minimum, an AG invoking Jesus certainly is
> noteworthy, whatever one thinks of its propriety.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Michael Worley 
> wrote:
>
>> Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman > > wrote:
>>
>>> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
>>> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
>>> love thy neighbor."
>>>
>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
>>> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
>>>
 Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
 not appeal Judge Reeves' decision

 http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html

 --


> ___
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>



-- 
Michael Worley
J.D., Brigham Young University
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Mississippi AG Hood declines to appeal adverse decision on HB1523

[Marty Lederman]

Michael:  Thank you for asking.  Of course I have no objection to protecting
the least among us, let alone to the Golden Rule.  Those are wonderful
aspirations and guides to behavior, and they might even appropriately be
considered in government decision-making, including even in deciding when
to concede a lawsuit.  But this is a case of an Attorney General publicly
suggesting that an official decision of his was made by virtue of "Jesus's
directive."  And in an Establishment Clause case, at that!

I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional for a state official to
make decisions based upon injunctions of religious authorities (or, at
least, that's not typically justiciable); but I do think it is
inappropriate to publicly invoke such religious authority in explaining the
basis for one's action on behalf of the state.  I've been involved in many
such decisions, and can't imagine any government official so much as
proposing to invoke Jesus's authority as the basis for an appeal decision,
let alone actually announcing it.

If, however, my reaction is not universally shared (or my experiences are
less-than-universal), please feel free to ignore the final word of my post
-- suffice it to say that, at a minimum, an AG invoking Jesus certainly is
noteworthy, whatever one thinks of its propriety.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Michael Worley  wrote:

> Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman 
> wrote:
>
>> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
>> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
>> love thy neighbor."
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
>> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
>>> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>>>
>>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

[Roger Severino]

I am curious too. Do you take issue with his theology or do you think his 
refusal to defend the law presents an Establishment Clause problem, or 
something else?

Roger Severino

On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:09, Michael Worley 
mailto:mwor...@byulaw.net>> wrote:

Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman 
mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry out 
Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy 
neighbor."

Sigh.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. 
mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu>> wrote:
Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will not 
appeal Judge Reeves' decision
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Agreed.  Any language that might have extended protection to all religious 
beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to Islam, 
and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a large 
percentage of the republican caucus in the House.  Isn’t the entire exercise 
just political chumming?

Mike

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
 On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Agreed.

That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 went 
beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 ("Some 
Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith prevents them 
from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith marriage Why 
should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed to recuse from 
issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while her coworkers have 
the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I 
think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand protection to all religious 
beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, the bill would likely lose any 
chance it previously may have had of passing in the House.

The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the priorities 
of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though exemption bills and 
(2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's statement indicates that 
there will be reluctance among some FADA supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve 
#1.

- Jim


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter 
mailto:masin...@nova.edu>> wrote:
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against 
enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523.  Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB 
1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious 
preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex 
marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it.  Although the 
state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending 
appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest 
it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate.

Mike


Michael R. Masinter
Professor of Law
Nova Southeastern University
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
954.262.6151
masin...@nova.edu



From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
 On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the 
change described below.

https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession

It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee 
endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from 
its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the 
revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw 
its support of the bill).

- Jim


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske 
mailto:jole...@lclark.edu>> wrote:
In the wak

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

[Ryan T. Anderson]

Should he either do his job or resign?

On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Roger Severino  wrote:

> I am curious too. Do you take issue with his theology or do you think his
> refusal to defend the law presents an Establishment Clause problem, or
> something else?
>
> Roger Severino
>
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 11:09, Michael Worley  > wrote:
>
> Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman  > wrote:
>
>> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
>> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
>> love thy neighbor."
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
>> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
>>> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>>>
>>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>>  [
>>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> ]
>>> on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu
>>> ]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>>
>>> Agreed.  Any language that might have extended protection to all
>>> religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs
>>> specific to Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA
>>> supporters and a large percentage of the republican caucus in the House.
>>> Isn’t the entire exercise just political chumming?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> 
>>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> ] *On
>>> Behalf Of *James Oleske
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <
>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB
>>> 1523 went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op.
>>> at 50 ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their
>>> faith prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an
>>> interfaith marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not
>>> be allowed to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith
>>> couple, while her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To
>>> fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have
>>> had to expand protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So
>>> extended, however, the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may
>>> have had of passing in the House.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
>>> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
>>> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
>>> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
>>> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
>>> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523.  Judge Reeves enjoined
>>> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
>>> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
>>> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
>>> favored it.  Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
>>> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
>>> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
>>> certain death in the Senate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael R. Masinter
>>>
>>> Professor of Law
>>>
>>> Nova Southeastern University
>>>
>>> 3305 College Avenue
>>>
>>> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>>>
>>> 954.262.6151
>>>
>>> masin...@nova.edu 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> 
>>> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
>>> ] *On
>>> Behalf Of *James Oleske
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
>>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <
>>> religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due
>>> to the change described below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform
>>> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting
>>> messages from its supporters today (Her

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

[Michael Worley]

Marty, I, for one, would be curious what you meant by "sigh."

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Marty Lederman 
wrote:

> He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to
> carry out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to
> love thy neighbor."
>
> Sigh.
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
> howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
>> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>>
>> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>>
>> --
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [
>> masin...@nova.edu]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>> Agreed.  Any language that might have extended protection to all
>> religious beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs
>> specific to Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA
>> supporters and a large percentage of the republican caucus in the House.
>> Isn’t the entire exercise just political chumming?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >
>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523
>> went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50
>> ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith
>> prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith
>> marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed
>> to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while
>> her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address
>> Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand
>> protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however,
>> the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing
>> in the House.
>>
>>
>>
>> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
>> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
>> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
>> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
>> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
>> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523.  Judge Reeves enjoined
>> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
>> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
>> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
>> favored it.  Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
>> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
>> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
>> certain death in the Senate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael R. Masinter
>>
>> Professor of Law
>>
>> Nova Southeastern University
>>
>> 3305 College Avenue
>>
>> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>>
>> 954.262.6151
>>
>> masin...@nova.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
>> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
>> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > >
>> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>>
>>
>>
>> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due
>> to the change described below.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
>>
>>
>>
>> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform
>> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting
>> messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides"
>> aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has
>> led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill).
>>
>>
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske  wrote:
>>
>> In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment
>> Defense Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has
>> been some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of
>> this confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was
>> neither (1) the introduced version of 

Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

[Marty Lederman]

He claims he didn't appeal because "I don’t believe that’s the way to carry
out Jesus’ primary directives to protect the least among us and to love thy
neighbor."

Sigh.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Friedman, Howard M. <
howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote:

> Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will
> not appeal Judge Reeves' decision
>
> http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html
>
> --
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Michael Masinter [
> masin...@nova.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
> Agreed.  Any language that might have extended protection to all religious
> beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to
> Islam, and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a
> large percentage of the republican caucus in the House.  Isn’t the entire
> exercise just political chumming?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523
> went beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50
> ("Some Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith
> prevents them from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith
> marriage Why should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed
> to recuse from issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while
> her coworkers have the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address
> Judge Reeves's concerns, I think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand
> protection to all religious beliefs about marriage. So extended, however,
> the bill would likely lose any chance it previously may have had of passing
> in the House.
>
>
>
> The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the
> priorities of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though
> exemption bills and (2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's
> statement indicates that there will be reluctance among some FADA
> supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve #1.
>
>
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter 
> wrote:
>
> The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction
> against enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523.  Judge Reeves enjoined
> enforcement of HB 1523 in part because, in his view, it created a
> discriminatory religious preference, protecting those who for religious
> reasons opposed same sex marriage but not those who for religious reasons
> favored it.  Although the state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay
> of his injunction pending appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought
> it wise to account for it lest it fail in the House even before facing
> certain death in the Senate.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael R. Masinter
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Nova Southeastern University
>
> 3305 College Avenue
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
>
> 954.262.6151
>
> masin...@nova.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:
> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *James Oleske
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> *Subject:* Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act
>
>
>
> Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to
> the change described below.
>
>
>
> https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession
>
>
>
> It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform
> Committee endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting
> messages from its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides"
> aspect of the revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has
> led FRC to withdraw its support of the bill).
>
>
>
> - Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske  wrote:
>
> In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense
> Act (FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been
> some confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this
> confusion is the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither
> (1) the introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available
> on Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator
> Lee last September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to
> exclude federal employees working within the scope of employment,
> for-profit fede

RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

[Friedman, Howard M.]

Issuing a strong statement, Mississippi's attorney general says he will not 
appeal Judge Reeves' decision
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/07/mississippi-ag-will-not-appeal.html

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] 
on behalf of Michael Masinter [masin...@nova.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:07 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Agreed.  Any language that might have extended protection to all religious 
beliefs about marriage also would have encompassed beliefs specific to Islam, 
and that would be a deal breaker for many FADA supporters and a large 
percentage of the republican caucus in the House.  Isn’t the entire exercise 
just political chumming?

Mike

From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Agreed.

That said, Judge Reeves's concern about "religious preference" in HB 1523 went 
beyond the "one side of same-sex marriage" issue. See Reeves Op. at 50 ("Some 
Jewish and Muslim citizens may sincerely believe that their faith prevents them 
from participating in, recognizing, or aiding an interfaith marriage Why 
should a clerk with such a religious belief not be allowed to recuse from 
issuing a marriage license to an interfaith couple, while her coworkers have 
the full protections of HB 1523?"). To fully address Judge Reeves's concerns, I 
think the FADA sponsors would have had to expand protection to all religious 
beliefs about marriage. So extended, however, the bill would likely lose any 
chance it previously may have had of passing in the House.

The other dynamic I think is at work here is a tension between the priorities 
of (1) achieving protection of religious dissenters though exemption bills and 
(2) using exemption bills to resist Obergefell. FRC's statement indicates that 
there will be reluctance among some FADA supporters to sacrifice #2 to achieve 
#1.

- Jim


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Masinter 
mailto:masin...@nova.edu>> wrote:
The “both sides” language may be a response to Judge Reeves’ injunction against 
enforcement of Mississippi’s HB 1523.  Judge Reeves enjoined enforcement of HB 
1523 in part because, in his view, it created a discriminatory religious 
preference, protecting those who for religious reasons opposed same sex 
marriage but not those who for religious reasons favored it.  Although the 
state has appealed his ruling and sought a stay of his injunction pending 
appeal, some FADA proponents might have thought it wise to account for it lest 
it fail in the House even before facing certain death in the Senate.

Mike


Michael R. Masinter
Professor of Law
Nova Southeastern University
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
954.262.6151
masin...@nova.edu



From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
 On Behalf Of James Oleske
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 6:29 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: New Version of Proposed First Amendment Defense Act

Update: The Family Research Council has pulled it's support of FADA due to the 
change described below.

https://www.frcaction.org/updatearticle/20160713/fada-concession

It's been a very interesting week for FADA, between the RNC Platform Committee 
endorsement Monday, the House hearing yesterday, and conflicting messages from 
its supporters today (Heritage has invoked the "both sides" aspect of the 
revised FADA to defend it, while that is precisely what has led FRC to withdraw 
its support of the bill).

- Jim


On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:47 AM, James Oleske 
mailto:jole...@lclark.edu>> wrote:
In the wake of yesterday's hearing on the proposed First Amendment Defense Act 
(FADA), which now has 171 co-sponsores in the House, there has been some 
confusion about the text of the bill. I believe the source of this confusion is 
the fact that the version discussed at the hearing was neither (1) the 
introduced version of the bill, which is the only version available on 
Congress.gov nor (2) the revised version of the bill posted by Senator Lee last 
September, which limited the definition of protected "persons" to exclude 
federal employees working within the scope of employment, for-profit federal 
contractors operating within the scope of their contract, and medical providers 
with respect to issues of visitation and provision of care.

The version discussed at the hearing is available here:

https://labrador.house.gov/uploads/First%20Amendment%20Defense%20Act%20-%20H.R.%202802%20-%20Revised%20ANS%20-%207-7-16.