RE: Alito and Religion
Title: Message There are even more to choose from: - ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under endorsement test) - ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display for lack of standing) - Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge by Native American bear owner against PA policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity) - CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving viewpoint discrimination challenge to prohibition on 1st grader’s choice to read Beginner’s Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to classroom assignment to pick favorite story). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses, including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the strongest post-Lukumi reading of the Free Exercise Clause in the courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship (2004), involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause by permitting such activity). ___ 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: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st graders choice to read Beginners
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -Original Message-
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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: Alito and Religion
It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in
the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker
and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against
forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight
equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed
for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol Square review
board.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from
any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read
Beginner(tm)s
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -Original Message-
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
___
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: Alito and Religion
Okay, I'll bite. Why is it obvious that SO'C would not join the FOP opinion? Because she applies strict scrutiny with deference, or because FOP appears to extend beyond Sherbert? It's my view that FOP is a straight-on Sherbert decision -- religious reasons are rejected whereas secular reasons for the very same conduct are not, triggering strict scrutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one at the Court thinks Sherbert is wrong on that reasoning.
Marci -Original Message-From: Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:59:44 -0500Subject: Re: Alito and Religion
Yes, but . . .
What are the odds that SOC would recognize the Free Exercise claim in FOP v. Newark?
And what are the odds that Alito will embrace the O'Connor opinion rather than the Thomas opinion in Mitchell v. Helms?
Very, very low on both accounts, I think -- especially the latter. Chip's correct -- no direct evidence; but I know where I'd place my wager.
- Original Message -
From: "Lupu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I have two observations:1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example, Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any other issues to funding issues.)2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that comparison?Chip On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:> > There are even more to choose from:> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday> display fo!
r lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge> by Native American bear owner against PA > policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving> viewpoint discrimination > challenge to prohibition on 1st graderTs choice to read BeginnerTs> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).> > -Original Message-> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion> > As most of you probably alread
y know, Judge Alito has written> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause> by permitting such activity).> > Ira C. ("Chip") LupuF. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NWWashington D.C 20052(202) 994-7053[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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; a!
nd list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to other
s.
___
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.
___
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: Alito and Religion
Yes, but . . .
What are the odds that SOC would recognize the Free
Exercise claim in FOP v. Newark?
And what are the odds that Alito will embrace the
O'Connor opinion rather than the Thomas opinion in Mitchell v.
Helms?
Very, very low on both accounts, I think --
especially the latter. Chip's correct -- no direct evidence; but I know
where I'd place my wager.
- Original Message -
From: "Lupu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40
AM
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:1. None of them are about funding
issues, so we don't know where he stands on those (i.e., where would he have
been in, for example, Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very
difficult to extrapolate from any other issues to funding
issues.)2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause
questions in which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?Chip On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello
wrote:> > There are even more to choose from:> -ACLU v
Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under> endorsement
test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday> display for
lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge> by Native
American bear owner against PA > policy
forbidding keeping animals in captivity)> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6
split of 3d Cir en banc involving> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st graderTs choice
to read BeginnerTs> Bible story (containing no
reference to God) in response to> classroom
assignment to pick favorite story).> >
-Original Message->
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Marty> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
9:29 AM To: Law & Religion> issues for Law
Academics Subject: Alito and Religion> >
As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has
written> several very interesting opinions on the
religion clauses,> including, most notably, FOP
v. Newark (1999), perhaps the> strongest
post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in
the> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism
Fellowship(2004),> involving whether a religious
organization was constitutionally> entitled to
hand out literature to elementary school students
(and> whether the school district would violate
the Establishment Clause> by permitting such
activity).> > Ira C. ("Chip") LupuF. Elwood
& Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law
School 2000 H St., NWWashington D.C 20052(202)
994-7053[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message
to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo
subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
___
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: Alito and Religion
Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's
opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his
understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion
correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students
assignments are non-public forums, and, therefore, viewpoint
discriminatory restrictions on student speech in either context should
be reviewed under strict scrutiny.
The captive audience issue Marc raises is only part of the problem.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in
the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker
and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against
forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight
equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed
for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol Square review
board.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from
any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read
Beginner(tm)s
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -Original Message-
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
___
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.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
RE: Alito and Religion
Alan what serious questions are you referring to? It seems to me that
Judge Alito's position reflects the majority view of the courts of
appeals that Hazelwood requires application of strict scrutiny to
viewpoint based censorship of student speech.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's
opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his
understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion
correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students
assignments are non-public forums, and, therefore, viewpoint
discriminatory restrictions on student speech in either context should
be reviewed under strict scrutiny.
The captive audience issue Marc raises is only part of the problem.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in
the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker
and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against
forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight
equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed
for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol Square review
board.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from
any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read
Beginner(tm)s
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -Original Message-
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
RE: Alito and Religion
I am sure others will climb aboard here, but I think this is not what Hazelwood held. Rather, the holding centered on "school-sponsored expression" and stated that as to such expression, the school's censorship authority is limited to the following: "It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so 'directly and sharply implicated,' ...as to require judicial intervention to protect students' educational rights." Hazelwood falls into the cluster of cases (e.g. Fraser) that give schools substantial authority over things they deem within the "curriculum." The Court permits the schools to enforce civility norms here. Did you mean Pico? Or even Tinker? (Though Tinker is the high water mark of student expressive freedom, is rather old, set the "substantial disruption" brake on expression, and did not deal with religious expression per se.) The lower court cases have been quite deferential to schools' decisions to excise from the curriculum things they deem unsuitable for children. In a few cases, that has meant excision of Lysistrata and The Miller's Tale, which were thought to be sexually explicit and excessively vulgar. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:34 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Alan what serious questions are you referring to? It seems to me that Judge Alito's position reflects the majority view of the courts of appeals that Hazelwood requires application of strict scrutiny to viewpoint based censorship of student speech. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students assignments are non-public forums, and, therefore, viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on student speech in either context should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The captive audience issue Marc raises is only part of the problem. Alan Brownstein UC Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol Square review board. Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I have two observations: 1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example, Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any other issues to funding issues.) 2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that comparison? Chip On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote: > > There are even more to choose from: > -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under > endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday > display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge > by Native American bear owner against PA > policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity) > -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving > viewpoint discrimination > challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read Beginner(tm)s > Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to > classroom assignment to pick favorite story). > > -Original Message- > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty > Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31
RE: Alito and Religion
Hazelwood specifically limited itself to allowing schools greater leeway to engage in subject matter restrictions. It did not lift the requirement that strict scrutiny continue to apply to the more invidious censorship based on viewpoint (which, of course, includes religious viewpoints).So for example, in Searcey v. Harris, 888 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit held: Although Hazelwood provides reasons for allowing a school official to discriminate based on content, we do not believe it offers any justification for allowing educators to discriminate based on viewpoint. The prohibition against viewpoint discrimination is firmly embedded in first amendment analysis. Without more explicit direction, we will continue to require school officials to make decisions relating to speech which are viewpoint neutral. See also Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 941 F.2d 817, 829 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (holding that school newspaper, sporting event programs, and yearbook were school-sponsored, non-public fora under Hazelwood and Cornelius, and therefore "control over access . . . can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.") Derek L. Gaubatz Director of Litigation The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605 Washington DC 20036 202 349-7208 (phone) 202 955-0090 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Toni M. Massaro Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:59 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I am sure others will climb aboard here, but I think this is not what Hazelwood held. Rather, the holding centered on "school-sponsored expression" and stated that as to such expression, the school's censorship authority is limited to the following: "It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so 'directly and sharply implicated,' ...as to require judicial intervention to protect students' educational rights." Hazelwood falls into the cluster of cases (e.g. Fraser) that give schools substantial authority over things they deem within the "curriculum." The Court permits the schools to enforce civility norms here. Did you mean Pico? Or even Tinker? (Though Tinker is the high water mark of student expressive freedom, is rather old, set the "substantial disruption" brake on expression, and did not deal with religious expression per se.) The lower court cases have been quite deferential to schools' decisions to excise from the curriculum things they deem unsuitable for children. In a few cases, that has meant excision of Lysistrata and The Miller's Tale, which were thought to be sexually explicit and excessively vulgar. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:34 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Alan what serious questions are you referring to? It seems to me that Judge Alito's position reflects the majority view of the courts of appeals that Hazelwood requires application of strict scrutiny to viewpoint based censorship of student speech. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students assignments are non-public forums, and, therefore, viewpoint discriminatory restrictions on student speech in either context should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The captive audience issue Marc raises is only part of the problem. Alan Brownstein UC Davis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:47 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against forced religious speech. Justice O'Connor has not endorsed the straight equal treatment approach to speech/establishment Clause issues endorsed for example by Justice Scalia for a plurality In
RE: Alito and Religion
I'm aware that some circuits in some older cases read Hazelwood to be a non-public forum case and require the rigorous review of viewpoint discriminatory pedagogical decisions in a school classroom. I think these cases are wrong. Other circuits read Hazelwood more broadly and clearly have the better of the argument -- particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The direction of the Court's free speech cases has been to move away from forum analysis in evaluating the decisions of librarians, broadcast programmers and other officials whose work involves discretionary judgments about both the content and viewpoint of speech. In Arkansas Public Television and in American Library Association, the Court recognized that government expressive institutions are not forums. Judicial review of the decisions made by the officials running these institutions should be lenient -- if indeed these decisions should be subject to judicial review at all. It does not matter whether we are talking about librarian discretion, editorial discretion, curricular discretion, or pedagogical discretion. Teachers, librarians, and others simply can not do their jobs without making choices that could render them vulnerable to claims of content and viewpoint discrimination. Subjecting their decisions to strict scrutiny on free speech clause grounds is impractical -- and more critically, it substitutes the judgment of the federal courts for value based decisions that should be left to political determination -- except in the most egregious of situations. The line the Court draws between content and viewpoint discrimination is nowhere near clear enough to permit this distinction to be employed as a basis for rigorously reviewing the decisions of people whose business it is to make decisions about speech. And even if the line was clearer than it is, rigorously reviewing viewpoint discriminatory decisions would still make no sense because part of the job of these officials to make distinctions based on viewpoint. This is particularly true when we are talking about elementary schools where part of what teachers do is to teach basic values, manners, morality and citizenship. There is nothing neutral about favoring stories promoting honesty, for example. If we took the argument seriously that viewpoint discriminatory judgments by teachers regarding student speech is subject to strict scrutiny review, the federal courts would become the de facto principals and schools boards of every public school in the United States. It is hard to believe that this suggestion is supported by conservatives who claim to be advocates of judicial restraint. Alan Brownstein UC Davis Hazelwood specifically limited itself to allowing schools greater leeway to engage in subject matter restrictions. It did not lift the requirement that strict scrutiny continue to apply to the more invidious censorship based on viewpoint (which, of course, includes religious viewpoints).So for example, in Searcey v. Harris, 888 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit held: Although Hazelwood provides reasons for allowing a school official to discriminate based on content, we do not believe it offers any justification for allowing educators to discriminate based on viewpoint. The prohibition against viewpoint discrimination is firmly embedded in first amendment analysis. Without more explicit direction, we will continue to require school officials to make decisions relating to speech which are viewpoint neutral. See also Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 941 F.2d 817, 829 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (holding that school newspaper, sporting event programs, and yearbook were school-sponsored, non-public fora under Hazelwood and Cornelius, and therefore "control over access . . . can be based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.") Derek L. Gaubatz Director of Litigation The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605 Washington DC 20036 202 349-7208 (phone) 202 955-0090 (fax) Alan what serious questions are you referring to? It seems to me that Judge Alito's position reflects the majority view of the courts of appeals that Hazelwood requires application of strict scrutiny to viewpoint based censorship of student speech. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 12:12 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion Whether O'Connor would have decided Oliva the same way or not, Alito's opinion in this case raises some serious questions about his understanding of free speech doctrine. If I understand his opinion correctly, Alito argues that public school classrooms and students assignment
RE: Alito and Religion
It's not just older cases that have done this. The 2nd Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Calabresi, did so less than 2 weeks ago. Peck ex rel. Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School Dist. Judge Calabresi recognized that the rule of viewpoint neutrality has been and remains a "core facet of First Amendment protection." Nor do I think it's a particularly liberal or conservative issue to ask federal courts to enforce a rule prohibiting viewpoint discrimination in schools. Indeed, in light of the value that our society has traditionally placed on academic freedom, it seems surprising that we would be happy with the idea that educators may systematically censor particular viewpoints from students responding to classroom assignments. Derek L. Gaubatz Director of Litigation The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605 Washington DC 20036 202 349-7208 (phone) 202 955-0090 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I'm aware that some circuits in some older cases read Hazelwood to be a non-public forum case and require the rigorous review of viewpoint discriminatory pedagogical decisions in a school classroom. I think these cases are wrong. Other circuits read Hazelwood more broadly and clearly have the better of the argument -- particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The direction of the Court's free speech cases has been to move away from forum analysis in evaluating the decisions of librarians, broadcast programmers and other officials whose work involves discretionary judgments about both the content and viewpoint of speech. In Arkansas Public Television and in American Library Association, the Court recognized that government expressive institutions are not forums. Judicial review of the decisions made by the officials running these institutions should be lenient -- if indeed these decisions should be subject to judicial review at all. It does not matter whether we are talking about librarian discretion, editorial discretion, curricular discretion, or pedagogical discretion. Teachers, librarians, and others simply can not do their jobs without making choices that could render them vulnerable to claims of content and viewpoint discrimination. Subjecting their decisions to strict scrutiny on free speech clause grounds is impractical -- and more critically, it substitutes the judgment of the federal courts for value based decisions that should be left to political determination -- except in the most egregious of situations. The line the Court draws between content and viewpoint discrimination is nowhere near clear enough to permit this distinction to be employed as a basis for rigorously reviewing the decisions of people whose business it is to make decisions about speech. And even if the line was clearer than it is, rigorously reviewing viewpoint discriminatory decisions would still make no sense because part of the job of these officials to make distinctions based on viewpoint. This is particularly true when we are talking about elementary schools where part of what teachers do is to teach basic values, manners, morality and citizenship. There is nothing neutral about favoring stories promoting honesty, for example. If we took the argument seriously that viewpoint discriminatory judgments by teachers regarding student speech is subject to strict scrutiny review, the federal courts would become the de facto principals and schools boards of every public school in the United States. It is hard to believe that this suggestion is supported by conservatives who claim to be advocates of judicial restraint. Alan Brownstein UC Davis Hazelwood specifically limited itself to allowing schools greater leeway to engage in subject matter restrictions. It did not lift the requirement that strict scrutiny continue to apply to the more invidious censorship based on viewpoint (which, of course, includes religious viewpoints).So for example, in Searcey v. Harris, 888 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit held: Although Hazelwood provides reasons for allowing a school official to discriminate based on content, we do not believe it offers any justification for allowing educators to discriminate based on viewpoint. The prohibition against viewpoint discrimination is firmly embedded in first amendment analysis. Without more explicit direction, we will continue to require school officials to make decisions relating to speech which are viewpoint neutral. See also Planned Parenthood of Southern Nevada, Inc. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 941 F.2d 817, 829 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (holding that school newspaper, sporting event programs, and yearbook were school-sponsored, non-public fora under Hazelwood and Cornelius, and therefore "
RE: Alito and Religion
You got me. I missed that recent case. I'll have to read it before I tell you whether I think it's wrong or not. As for what is liberal or conservative, conservatives typically want the courts to stay out of the business of running the public schools. Or at least they used to. Something about judges not intruding into decisions that are intrinsically political and should be determined by local communities. I think the idea of academic freedom in an elementary school classroom is, well, silly. Teachers certainly don't have it as a matter of constitutional law. Nor, for the most part, do kids in the classroom. Whether I would be happy with the idea of educators systematically censoring student viewpoints in classrooms, of course, is a very different question than whether I think the Constitution prohibits such conduct, or should prohibit such conduct. I thought that was something conservatives believed too -- that an unwise policy isn't necessarily an unconstitutional one. For what it is worth, I engage in viewpoint discrimination all the time in teaching law school classes. I can't imagine how I could teach without doing so. I distinguish between student comments for various reasons. For example, I'm probably willing to cut off liberal student comments to give more time to conservative student speakers. The student body is largely liberal and sometimes that's the only way to get a balanced discussion. I think my goals satisfy a legitimate pedagogical purpose standard. I'm not at all sure whether this decision, or other pedagogical choices I make, could satisfy strict scrutiny. Alan Brownstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Gaubatz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:50 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion It's not just older cases that have done this. The 2nd Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Calabresi, did so less than 2 weeks ago. Peck ex rel. Peck v. Baldwinsville Central School Dist. Judge Calabresi recognized that the rule of viewpoint neutrality has been and remains a "core facet of First Amendment protection." Nor do I think it's a particularly liberal or conservative issue to ask federal courts to enforce a rule prohibiting viewpoint discrimination in schools. Indeed, in light of the value that our society has traditionally placed on academic freedom, it seems surprising that we would be happy with the idea that educators may systematically censor particular viewpoints from students responding to classroom assignments. Derek L. Gaubatz Director of Litigation The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 605 Washington DC 20036 202 349-7208 (phone) 202 955-0090 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I'm aware that some circuits in some older cases read Hazelwood to be a non-public forum case and require the rigorous review of viewpoint discriminatory pedagogical decisions in a school classroom. I think these cases are wrong. Other circuits read Hazelwood more broadly and clearly have the better of the argument -- particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. The direction of the Court's free speech cases has been to move away from forum analysis in evaluating the decisions of librarians, broadcast programmers and other officials whose work involves discretionary judgments about both the content and viewpoint of speech. In Arkansas Public Television and in American Library Association, the Court recognized that government expressive institutions are not forums. Judicial review of the decisions made by the officials running these institutions should be lenient -- if indeed these decisions should be subject to judicial review at all. It does not matter whether we are talking about librarian discretion, editorial discretion, curricular discretion, or pedagogical discretion. Teachers, librarians, and others simply can not do their jobs without making choices that could render them vulnerable to claims of content and viewpoint discrimination. Subjecting their decisions to strict scrutiny on free speech clause grounds is impractical -- and more critically, it substitutes the judgment of the federal courts for value based decisions that should be left to political determination -- except in the most egregious of situations. The line the Court draws between content and viewpoint discrimination is nowhere near clear enough to permit this distinction to be employed as a basis for rigorously reviewing the decisions of people whose business it is to make decisions about speech. And even if the line was clearer than it is, rigorously reviewing viewpoint discriminatory decision
Re: Alito and Religion
This is one of the most vexing free speech and, often, free exercise issues that I've had to deal with. I don't think that calling the activity "curricular" solves the problem, either, since extremes at either end of that spectrum also defy application of a general rule. If a child is placed in detention or otherwise suffers injury for bringing her stuffed donkey to show & tell because the teacher is a fervent Republican, would any on the list be hostile to a viewpoint discrimination claim? Alan's "discrimination," on the other hand, hardly seems actionable.
I'm on the side that would place the Oliva case in the former category ("read from your favorite book," which happens to be the Beginner's Bible). I wouldn't be surprised if a great deal of disagreement results from differing reactions to the actual harms suffered. Being denied the ability to proselytize or even merely speak might not seem to be as great of an injury as being expelled or placed in detention, but is the distinction constitutionally significant?
Roman Storzer
___
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: Alito and Religion
Thanks for a very thoughtful post, Roman.
Actually, I think a distinction between a school denying a student the
opportunity to speak in class and a school disciplining a student for what he
or she says may be constitutionally significant. Vik Amar and I have a piece in
press for Green Bag that makes this very point in the context of restrictions
on teacher speech. We suggest that School Boards have substantial discretionary
authority to tell teachers what they can or can not say in the classroom, but
they have to exercise that authority in advance. If a teacher says something in
class that he or she has no reason to know is unacceptable speech, the
principal or Board has to the power to prohibit her from continuing to express
that message to her students. But they should not be able to discipline her for
her initial comments. It is a kind of mixed due process/free speech analysis. Maybe
the same analysis could apply to students.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roman Storzer
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
4:55 PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Alito and Religion
This is
one of the most vexing free speech and, often, free exercise issues that I've
had to deal with. I don't think that calling the activity
"curricular" solves the problem, either, since extremes at either end
of that spectrum also defy application of a general rule. If a child is placed
in detention or otherwise suffers injury for bringing her stuffed donkey to
show & tell because the teacher is a fervent Republican, would any on the
list be hostile to a viewpoint discrimination claim? Alan's "discrimination,"
on the other hand, hardly seems actionable.
I'm on
the side that would place the Oliva case in the former category ("read
from your favorite book," which happens to be the Beginner's Bible). I
wouldn't be surprised if a great deal of disagreement results from differing
reactions to the actual harms suffered. Being denied the ability to proselytize
or even merely speak might not seem to be as great of an injury as being
expelled or placed in detention, but is the distinction constitutionally
significant?
Roman
Storzer
___
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: Alito and Religion
Title: Message Marci: Any thoughts on how far you'd take the "religious reasons are rejected whereas secular reasons for the very same conduct are not . . . trigger[s] strict scrutiny" argument? An example: Title VII generally bars sex discrimination in employment, but provides a BFOQ exception. That exception has been read to allow sex discrimination when the reason is, for instance, privacy, or audience preference for sex-authentic casting. (See generally http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/ccri.htm#IIA3b). But if a non-religious-institution employer wants to engage in the very same conduct -- hiring discrimination based on sex -- for religious reasons, for instance because he has a sincere religious belief that men and women ought not work together (at least in jobs that require them to be alone together), or that women with young children shouldn't be working, his "religious reasons are rejected whereas secular reasons for the very same conduct are not." Does it follow that Title VII should be subject to strict scrutiny, in the views of everyone at the Court? Or how about the duty to testify? Various secular reasons for a person's refusing to testify are accepted -- just consider the privileges (which also respect one sort of religious reason, clergy-penitent confidentiality). But a religious objection to testify against one's parent or child, or for that matter against any coreligionist, is not. Strict scrutiny, so that everyone at the Court would apply Sherbert to it? Eugene -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 8:03 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Alito and Religion Okay, I'll bite. Why is it obvious that SO'C would not join the FOP opinion? Because she applies strict scrutiny with deference, or because FOP appears to extend beyond Sherbert? It's my view that FOP is a straight-on Sherbert decision -- religious reasons are rejected whereas secular reasons for the very same conduct are not, triggering strict scrutiny. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one at the Court thinks Sherbert is wrong on that reasoning. Marci -Original Message-From: Marty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:59:44 -0500Subject: Re: Alito and Religion Yes, but . . . What are the odds that SOC would recognize the Free Exercise claim in FOP v. Newark? And what are the odds that Alito will embrace the O'Connor opinion rather than the Thomas opinion in Mitchell v. Helms? Very, very low on both accounts, I think -- especially the latter. Chip's correct -- no direct evidence; but I know where I'd place my wager. - Original Message - From: "Lupu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM Subject: RE: Alito and Religion I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I have two observations:1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example, Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from any other issues to funding issues.)2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that comparison?Chip On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:> > There are even more to choose from:> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday> display fo! r lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge> by Native American bear owner against PA > policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving> viewpoint discrimination > challenge to prohibition on 1st graderTs choice to read BeginnerTs> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).> > -Original Message-> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion> > As most of you probably alread y know, Judge Alito has written> several very interesting opinions on the religion claus
RE: Alito and Religion
It is not all apparent which way Justice O'Connor would have voted in
the Oliva case, which involved a clash between the right of the speaker
and the power of school officials to protect a captive audience against
forced religious speech. JSUtice O'Connor ahs not endoerdsed the
straight equal tretment approach ot speech/establsihmnet Clasue issues
endorsed for example by justice Scalia for a plurality In Capitol
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Alito and Religion
I have taken a quick look at Alito's Religion Clause opinions, and I
have two observations:
1. None of them are about funding issues, so we don't know where
he stands on those (i.e., where would he have been in, for example,
Mitchell v. Helms?). (I think it is very difficult to extrapolate from
any
other issues to funding issues.)
2. I have found no opinion of Alito's on Religion Clause questions in
which it is apparent that Justice O'Connor would have disagreed
with him. Does anyone on the list have a different take on that
comparison?
Chip
On 31 Oct 2005 at 9:48, Anthony Picarello wrote:
>
> There are even more to choose from:
> -ACLU v Schundler (rejecting EC challenge to holiday display under
> endorsement test) -ACLU v Wall Twp (rejecting EC challenge to holiday
> display for lack of standing) -Blackhawk v PA (upholding FEC challenge
> by Native American bear owner against PA
> policy forbidding keeping animals in captivity)
> -CH v Oliva (dissent in 6-6 split of 3d Cir en banc involving
> viewpoint discrimination
> challenge to prohibition on 1st grader(tm)s choice to read
Beginner(tm)s
> Bible story (containing no reference to God) in response to
> classroom assignment to pick favorite story).
>
> -Original Message-
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty
> Lederman Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion
> issues for Law Academics Subject: Alito and Religion
>
> As most of you probably already know, Judge Alito has written
> several very interesting opinions on the religion clauses,
> including, most notably, FOP v. Newark (1999), perhaps the
> strongest post-Lukumireading of the Free Exercise Clause in the
> courts of appeals, and Christian Evangelism Fellowship(2004),
> involving whether a religious organization was constitutionally
> entitled to hand out literature to elementary school students (and
> whether the school district would violate the Establishment Clause
> by permitting such activity).
>
>
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
___
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.
