For those who are interested, our latest podcast at the Center for Law and Religion Forum is on the Supreme Court’s decision this week in Holt v. Hobbs, the prison beard case. My colleague Marc DeGirolami and I analyze the holding and discuss its implications for religious liberty. You can listen to the podcast here. Continue Reading »
A growing number of legal scholars question whether a justification exists for protecting religion as its own category. Yes, the text of the First Amendment refers specifically to religion, they concede, but that’s an anachronism. As a matter of principle, religion as such doesn’t merit . . . . Continue Reading »
Post-argument predictions will continue to pour out regarding Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, cases in which business owners (the Green and Hahn families) have voiced religious objections to being forced to pay for certain types of contraceptives. The . . . . Continue Reading »
Students in my constitutional law course are usually surprised, and often skeptical, when I propose that the most important case they will study is not about abortion rights, the death penalty, or the status of Guantanamo Bay, and does not concern Ten Commandments monuments, Christmas displays, or . . . . Continue Reading »
Neglect of the full scope of the First Amendment diminishes our . . . . Continue Reading »
The cover story on National Review is by Jonathan Adler and Nathaniel Stewart, who are insisting there were Positive Steps, Silver Linings in the Supreme Court’s ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius ruling. Since I am expecting stormy weather over the next few years in the matter of . . . . Continue Reading »
The Supreme Court just overruled multiple democratically elected legislatures to impose its policy preferences on the country by a narrow 5-4 majority. Keep that in mind tomorrow if (IF!) the Supreme Court strikes down the Obamacare individual health insurance purchase mandate. Just . . . . Continue Reading »
Wow. The oral argument defense of Obamacare’s constitutionality so far has not just been bad, as has been reported, but has been stunningly bad. And the incompetence displayed goes beyond that of Solicitor General Verrilli, but extends to several of the meaning-to-help-his-case comments . . . . Continue Reading »
What is black and white but leaves law-literate liberals shrieking and gibbering with fright? The anti-Obamacare brief from the public interest law arm of the Claremont Institute! I.e., for liberals, the ultimate CLAREMONSTER!!! . . . . Continue Reading »
Justice Clarence Thomas has observed that the Supreme Court’s decisions and doctrine having to do with religious freedom, church“state relations, and “religion in the public square” are in “hopeless disarray.” What accounts for this mess? The causes, no doubt, are many: For example, the . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
