Professor Carl Esbeck of the University of Missouri School of Law has
published a new article entitled When Accommodations for Religion Violate
the Establishment Clause: Regularizing the Supreme Court's Analysis. It is
available on SSRN at the following URL:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=992885
FYI, in case you're interested.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Muslim Policewoman Barred from
WearingKhimar on the
It strikes me that her claim is not like Goldman's (which might be the
analogy that comes to mind), in that he wanted to wear something (a
skullcap under his uniform hat) that would not be visible to anyone most
of the time; the dissenters in that case made a strong argument that his
violation of
I think these dual-role cases are often difficult. Vis a vis the public, Webb
is the government, barred by the Establishment Clause from practicing religion.
But vis a vis her governmental employer, Webb is an individual, affirmatively
entitled with rights to practice religion under the Free
Is police work different from schools? Imagine the religious garb is a
necklace or chain (some faiths have such things, I believe); can police
dept. have a legitimate rule that says no necklaces because they are a
danger in fighting with criminals, which does happen? Can she insist on
her head
