Re: Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
The obvious examples are the statutes in Thornton and Texas Monthly. Also, the exemptionsin Hardison and Seeger/Welsh were read extremely creatively (narrowly in the first case, broadly in the draft cases), to avoid what the Court plainly saw as serious constitutional problems. The first version of the Christian Science sanatorium exemption to Medicare laws was more recently invalidated in the lower courts (and DOJ refused to defend it); but that was a blatant sect-based statute, so it's probably not the best example. -- Original message -- From: Perry Dane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, I'm looking for good examples of statutory religion-based exemptions (to otherwise generally applicable regulatory norms) that have been struck down on establishment clause, equal protection, or similar grounds. Feel free to respond privately unless you think that this would be of general interest. Thanks. Perry*** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers! .edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 ***___ 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.
Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
Marty, Thanks. Thornton, however, did not involve a statutory directive to government to accommodate the religious needs of certain individuals, but rather a statutory duty imposed on one set of private parties to accommodate the religious needs of another set of private parties. And Texas Monthly was a tax case. (There is, of course, language in both cases that might be relevant to the narrower issue I'm pursuing.) The Christian Science case is more directly on point, though, as you say, it involves a pretty extreme case. My question then, as refined, is this: Outside of the most blatant denominational preferences, are there good examples of statutory religion-based exemptions, defined in the narrow way I have in mind, being struck down? Thanks again. Perry ___ 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: Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, Perry. Yes, Thornton involved significant burdens on private parties -- that's largely why it was invalidated and distinguished from Amos (although of course, in Amos, too,private parties were asked to "accommodate" religion -- namely, the employees who lost their jobs). And yes, Texas Monthly was a tax exemption case -- but why does that put it outside the scope of your inquiry? In every accommodation case, the state is relieving religious believers or institutions from statutory burdens of some kind that would otherwise apply. That's true in Amos, in Thornton, in Cutter, in TM, in Welsh/Seeger (as written), in Hardison, etc. What, exactly, is the subset that you're trying to identify? -- Original message -- From: Perry Dane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marty, Thanks. Thornton, however, did not involve a statutory directive to government to accommodate the religious needs of certain individuals, but rather a statutory duty imposed on one set of private parties to accommodate the religious needs of another set of private parties. And Texas Monthly was a tax case. (There is, of course, language in both cases that might be relevant to the narrower issue I'm pursuing.) The Christian Science case is more directly on point, though, as you say, it involves a pretty extreme case. My question then, as refined, is this: Outside of the most blatant denominational preferences, are there good example! s of statutory religion-based exemptions, defined in the narrow way I have in mind, being struck down? Thanks again. Perry ___ 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: Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
I have a couple cites to cases where state laws granting exemptions to vaccination requirements were struck down as violating the Establishment Clause because they only applied to "recognized religions." See Dalli v. Board of Educ., 267 N.E. 2d 219 (Mass. 1971) and Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 672 F.Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 1987). Hope that helps,. Allen Asch In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:53:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marty, I'm sorry. I'm not being as clear as I should be. I'm talking about statutes that try to eliminate what would otherwise be a conflict between a secular norm of conduct that is directly imposed by the government and a religious norm of conduct. In other words, I'm talking about the same sorts of situations that, absent such a statutory exemption, could have, before Smith, given rise to a Sherbert/Yoder-type claim for a free exercise exemption. Examples include: draft exemptions (which were broadly construed but not struck down as such), exemptions from drug laws, exemptions from laws requiring drivers to have pictures on their drivers' licenses, exemptions from civil rights laws, the New Jersey religion-based exemption from its statute defining death, exemptions from auto insurance requirements, exemptions from immunization requirements, religious exemptions from (non-tax) alcohol-regulation laws, laws exempting employers with contrary religious beliefs from an otherwise-applicable statutory duty to include contraceptives in their prescription benefit plans for employees, statutes exempting religiously-motivated students from certain parts of an otherwise-required public school curriculum, statutes exempting religious believers (e.g., Amish) from the electrical provisions of the Uniform Construction Code, etc. Or, if I'm still not being clear in defining my terms (which would be my fault), then let me just ask the arbitrary question: beyond the examples discussed so far (Caldor, Texas Monthly, etc.), does anyone know of other examples? Perry ___ 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.
Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
Allen, Great. Thanks. Perry ___ 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: Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions
The limitation to recognized religions makes these exemptions discriminatory, and it sounds like that was the basis for striking them down. Perry's request is not turning up much. All the examples so far are in some ways extreme or distinguishable, and I expect that pattern to continue. On the basic question whether a simple regulatory exemption violates the Establishment Clause, without a showing of discrimination or of a significant burden on a third party, the Court has unanimously said no violation -- three times: in Amos, in Kiryas Joel (if you read all the separate opinions), and in Cutter. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Perry Dane Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:07 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Unconstitutional statutory religion-based exemptions Allen, Great. Thanks. Perry ___ 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.
