Religious Liberties

The Ohio Constitution of 1803, Jefferson's Danbury Letter, and Religion in Education

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

These statements come from the Ohio Constitution of 1803. They are from Section 3, the religion section of Article VIII, the Bill of Rights. This last sentence of Section 3, which addresses education, is taken directly from a statement in the Northwest Ordinance, passed by the Continental Congress July 13, 1787, which provided the framework for the admission of Ohio to the Union. It is the contention of this paper that these words express widely-held attitudes in regard to church and state, as well as religion and education, in the early days of the United States... [Read more!]

Eleventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Michael B. Mukasey

I thank Gene for that kind introduction, and of course the Federalist Society for the singular honor of delivering this lecture. This is actually the third time I have been invited to speak at a Federalist Society convention—I’m a little bit like the tenor called out for his second encore who is feeling pretty good about himself until he hears someone in the balcony shouting, “You’ll keep singing it until you get it right.” ... [Read more!]

James Madison by Richard Brookhiser - Podcast

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard Brookhiser, James A. Haynes

Richard Brookhiser's book examines the life of America's fourth President, James Madison, including his role in advising Thomas Jefferson, his relationships with various Founding Fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Featuring Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Author of James Madison and Columnist for American History and National Review Magazines, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Lawyers Chapter. [Listen now!]

A Religious Organization's Autonomy in Matters of Self-Governance: Hosanna-Tabor and the First Amendment

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

Carl H. Esbeck

In the second week of January, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case involved a fourth-grade teacher, Cheryl Perich, suing her employer, a church-based school, alleging retaliation for having asserted her rights under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the original suit, and the teacher intervened as a party. In the lower federal courts Hosanna-Tabor raised the “ministerial exception,” which recognizes that under the First Amendment religious organizations have the authority to select their own ministers—which necessarily entails not just initial hiring but also promotion, retention, and other terms and conditions of employment. Over the last forty years the ministerial exception has been recognized by every federal circuit to have considered it. Indeed, the exception overrides not just the ADA but also a number of venerable employment nondiscrimination civil rights statutes. Just who is a “minister,” however, has varied somewhat from circuit to circuit—and in any event the Supreme Court had never taken a case involving the ministerial exception. [Read more!]

Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics - Podcast

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Nicholas Wapshott, James A. Haynes

Nicholas Wapshott's book examines the vastly divergent economic philosophies of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Messrs. Keynes and Hayek studied the normal course of the capitalist business cycle, especially after World War I, but reached radically different opinions about the role governments should play in regulating and ameliorating the effects of the business cycle. These two gentlemen, two of the most influential economic thinkers of the 20th Century, participated in on-going debates about the respective merits of their own philosophies and the demerits of the other's philosophies. Mr. Wapshott examines these debates and expounds on them in this podcast. Featuring Mr. Nicholas Wapshott, Author of Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Lawyers Chapter.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Is Traditional Marriage Unconstitutional?

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

George W. Dent

Until 2000 the legal institution of civil marriage was understood to be available only to one man and one woman. In 2000 Californians passed an initiative statute (Proposition 22) reaffirming that understanding. The California legislature then enacted a law authorizing domestic partnerships for same-sex couples that offer the same legal treatment as marriage under a different name. In 2008 the California Supreme Court nullified Proposition 22 and construed the state constitution to mandate that marriage be redefined to be available to same-sex couples. [Read more!]

Perry, Same-Sex Marriage, and Federal Constitutional Guarantees

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Mark P. Strasser

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a California district court struck down California’s Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to preclude same-sex marriage. The opinion is of interest for a number of reasons, some of which have limited applicability outside of the California context and others of which have more general application. This essay focuses on the points in Perry that are of wider application, some of which would seem applicable to all states banning same-sex marriage and others of which are relevant to a subset of those states. [Read more!]

Does Neutrality Equal Secularism? The European Court of Human Rights Decides Lautsi v. Italy

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

William L. Saunders

Religion can be an intensely personal activity. However, the idea that religion is only a private, personal devotion with no public political consequences is relatively new. For many nations in Europe, religion, in particular Catholicism, exerted an important influence over government and politics for centuries. The remnants of this influence still remain in anthems, oaths, and ideologies, not to mention architecture. However, with the rise of an ideology of “strict separation of church and state” in the European Union and the Council of Europe, it has been unclear how countries may incorporate their religious influences and histories into public life and expression. The case of Lautsi v. Italy in the European Court of Human Rights illustrates this struggle between secular ideology and religious faith and affiliation in the European context. The ultimate decision in the case acknowledges that “freedom of religion” need not result in, as the late Richard John Neuhaus put it, the naked public square. [Read more!]

The Ministerial Exception Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Walter E. Dellinger III, Douglas Laycock, Michael W. McConnell, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain

The Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted this panel on "The Ministerial Exception Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC" on Friday, November 11, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The panel featured Hon. Walter E. Dellinger, III, of O’Melveny & Myers LLP; Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law; Hon. Michael W. McConnell of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the moderator.

Where Are the Muslim Moderates? - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Manda Zand Ervin, Naser Khader, David B. Rivkin, Jr.

The West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This keynote address by former member of the Danish Parliament Naser Khader on "Where Are the Muslim Moderates?" was followed by commentary from Ms. Manda Zand Ervin of the Alliance of Iranian Women and the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. Mr. David B. Rivkin Jr. of Baker & Hostetler LLP chaired this event.

Growing Repression in the West - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Bruce Bawer, Paul Diamond, Mark Durie

The West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This panel featured on the "Growing Repression in the West" featured Mr. Bruce Bawer, best-selling author of While Europe Slept; Mr. Paul Diamond, a United Kingdom defense attorney in hate speech cases; and the Rev. Dr. Mark Durie, Vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Melbourne, Australia.

The Muslim World - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

David F. Forte, Amjad M. Khan, Jacob Mchangama, Samuel Tadros, James P. Kelly

The West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This panel on "The Muslim World" featured Prof. David F. Forte of Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law; Mr. Amjad Mahmood Khan of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA; Mr. Jacob Mchangama of the Center for Political Studies (Copenhagen, Denmark); Mr. Samuel Tadros of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom; and Mr. James P. Kelly III, Director of International Affairs at the The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide - An Overview by the Authors - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Paul Marshall, Nina Shea, Jonathan Bunch

The West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This panel featured Mr. Paul Marshall and Ms. Nina Shea, both of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, as they discussed their new book Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Introduction by Mr. Jonathan Bunch, Vice President & Director of State Courts at the Federalist Society.

Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

The September 2011 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

European Court of Human Rights Finds No Right to Abortion Under European Human Rights Convention

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

William L. Saunders

Before the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR” or “the Court”) delivered its decision in the case of A. B. and C. v. Ireland (“ABC” or “ABC v. Ireland”) on December 16, 2010, there had been widespread speculation as to the potential breadth of the decision and its implications for the sovereignty of nation states that are members of the Council of Europe. Such speculation was encouraged by the fact that instead of being heard by a single Chamber of the ECHR, the case had been referred to the Grand Chamber, composed of all judges of the ECHR, and by the fact that the Court took longer than it normally does to issue its opinion...

Same-Sex Marriage and Conscience Exemptions

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Robin F. Wilson, Jana Singer

First, let me thank the Federalist Society and the LGBT Law Student Alliance for co-sponsoring this discussion and to thank my friends and former colleagues, Professor Richard Boldt for moderating and Professor Jana Singer for taking up this important conversation. I will talk today about reconciling same-sex marriage with religious liberty, values that I will argue need not be in tension if legislatures enact nuanced, thoughtful legislation recognizing same-sex marriage...

The Establishment Clause

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Richard W. Garnett, Kurt T. Lash

Most of you don’t remember—I am embarrassed that I do—the 1988 presidential election. One day, way back then, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was out on the stump, recalling his experience as a young fighter pilot when he was shot down over the South Pacific in World War II. This is what he said (and, even if you don’t remember the election, you might have heard Saturday Night Live’s Dana Carvey imitating the former President’s voice): “Was I scared, floating in a little yellow raft, off the coast of an enemy-held island, setting the world record for paddling? Of course I was. What sustains you in times like that? Well, you go back to fundamental values. I thought about Mother and Dad and the strength I get from them. I thought about God and faith . . . and the separation of church and state." ...

Did the Supreme Court Properly Decide Christian Legal Society v. Martinez?

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Gregory S. Baylor, Ronald Chen

Let me start with a story. In September of 1969, most Americans still supported military involvement in Vietnam. Richard Nixon had won the White House in part based on a promise to restore “law and order.” He was referring to some of the violent protests against the Vietnam War, many of which had occurred on college campuses...

Minority Religious Communities at Risk - Event Audio/Video

Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Randolph Marshall Bell, Thomas F. Farr, Tad Stahnke, William L. Saunders

Many commentators assert that there is no better measure of the human rights climate in any country than the treatment its authorities accord their minority religious communities. These small, sometimes ancient, sometimes immigrant, sometimes newly converted communities are the “canaries in the coal mine” of human rights. Attempting to exercise the freedoms of the individual human conscience guaranteed in universally recognized international covenants, Egyptian Copts, Venezuelan Jews, Ahmadiyya Muslims, Pentecostal Christians, Bahai, humanist non-believers, and numerous others in many lands suffer imprisonment, intimidation, denial of sustenance and employment, and death. Conflicts arise over the treatment of minorities: conflict prevention and conflict resolution often turn upon the credible redress of their grievances. Our panel of experts will discuss these and other issues. Featuring The Honorable Randolph Marshall Bell of the First Freedom Center; Prof. Thomas F. Farr of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University; Mr. Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First; and Mr. William L. Saunders of Americans United for Life as the moderator.

School Choice, Religious Freedom, and the Constitution(s) - Event Audio

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Richard W. Garnett, Brian J. Paul

On June 9, 2011, the Indianapolis Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Richard W. Garnett of the University of Notre Dame Law School. The topic of Prof. Garnett's discussion was school choice. Brian J. Paul of Ice Miller LLP and President of the Indianapolis Lawyers Chapter introduced Prof. Garnett.

HHS Mandate and Conscience Regulations

Fri, 18 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Mark L. Rienzi, Adam Winkler

The Department of Health and Human Services attracted a great deal of attention when it issued regulations to ensure that women receive preventative health care coverage at no additional out-of-pocket cost. The regulation would require employers, with an exception for certain religious organizations, to provide to employees preventive care, including domestic violence screening and breast-feeding support, but also including contraception, some of which acts as an abortifacient. Critics argued that the exceptions were too narrowly drawn, failing to exclude parochial schools, hospitals, soup kitchens, religious membership organizations, etc., and had no accommodation for self-insured employers who might have a conscience objection. A promised revision to the regulation to require the health insurance companies themselves to bear the costs of the benefit did not satisfy all critics. Join us as our experts debate these and other issues, including all the latest developments. Featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi of The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law and Prof. Adam Winkler of UCLA School of Law.

March 2012 DC Luncheon with O. Carter Snead

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

O. Carter Snead

Join us on March 1 for the Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter Luncheon featuring Prof. O. Carter Snead of the University of Notre Dame Law School. The topic of the address is "The Current Battle Over Religious Conscience Rights". The cost is $15 for members of the Society and $20 for non-members. [Register now!]

Silenced: Are Global Trends to Ban Religious Defamation, Religious Insult, and Islamophobia a New Challenge to First Amendment Freedoms?

Sun, 16 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST

Bruce Bawer, Naser Khader, Nina Shea, Paul Marshall, Paul Diamond, Jacob Mchangama, Mark Durie, Amjad M. Khan, David F. Forte, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Samuel Tadros, Jonathan Bunch, James P. Kelly

Minority Religious Communities at Risk

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EST

Randolph Marshall Bell, Christopher H. Smith, Tad Stahnke, William L. Saunders

New Conscience Regulations from the Department of Health & Human Services: Do They Strike the Right Balance Between Conscience and the Medical Profession?

Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EST

M. Gregg Bloche, Farr A. Curlin, Robert A. Destro, Jessie Hill, Mark L. Rienzi

The protection of conscience for health care providers has, in some arguments, been pitted against the right of an individual to receive a health care product or service. This past February, the Obama Administration revised earlier conscience clause regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Bush Administration. What are the practical implications of these revised regulations? How will the federal government now handle complaints filed by health care providers who allege that they have been compelled to violate their moral or religious beliefs? These and other questions will be addressed by our panel of experts.

2010 National Lawyers Convention

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Barry E. Carter, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Patrick McSweeney, Antonin Scalia, Dennis G. Jacobs, Marvin Ammori, Paul S. Atkins, John S. Baker, Jr., Randy E. Barnett, Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Lillian R. BeVier, Carl T. Bogus, James Bopp Jr., Steven G. Calabresi, Michael A. Carvin, Ronald A. Cass, Michael Chertoff, Roger Clegg, Robert D. Cooter, R. Ted Cruz, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard A. Epstein, William N. Eskridge, Jr., David French, Charles Fried, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Gerhardt, C. Boyden Gray, Thomas W. Hazlett, Christine Jolls, Douglas T. Kendall, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Edwin Meese III, Thomas W. Merrill, Paul R. Michel, John O. McGinnis, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Michael S. Paulsen, Thomas R. Phillips, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Mark F. Schultz, Bradley A. Smith, Paul M. Smith, Margaret D. Stock, Thomas J. Tauke, Clifford W. Taylor, Mark Tushnet, Eugene Volokh, Howard Waltzman, Ruth J. Wedgwood, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Mitch McConnell, Noah D. Bookbinder, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Brett M. Frischmann, Gigi B. Sohn, Kris W. Kobach, James C. Ho, William H. Pryor Jr., Joel R. Reidenberg, Diane S. Sykes, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Edith H. Jones, Ronald M. Levin, Victoria A. Lipnic, Roger Martella Jr., Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Roger Pilon, Rena I. Steinzor, Sarah B. Teslik, Peter J. Wallison, Arthur E. Wilmarth, John C. Yoo, Michael Barone, Michael S. Lee, Michael J. Madigan, Lanny J. Davis, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Jan Crawford, Carlos T. Bea, Kim Bobo, Shawn H. Chang, Thomas M. Hardiman, Jordan Lorence, Jeffrey P. Mahoney, Robert M. McDowell, Margaret E. McGuinness, Brandon Rees, David B. Sentelle, Jerry E. Smith, David Stras, Jeffrey S. Sutton, C. Gibson Vance, Pete Williams, Michael R. Pence, Daniel E. Lungren, Jeffrey Rosen

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 18 through Saturday, November 20 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

Christian Legal Society v. Mart�nez

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Luke Goodrich, Barry W. Lynn, Roger Pilon, Paul M. Smith, William L. Saunders The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Cato Institute present a panel discussion on Christian Legal Society v. Martínez. In 2004, the Christian Legal Society filed suit against the University of California Hastings College of the Law after being denied recognition and the benefits of recognition, including student activity fee funding, because the chapter requires its officers and voting members to adhere to the CLS Statement of Faith. In its lawsuit, CLS alleges that UC Hastings' exclusion of its chapter violates, among other constitutional rights, CLS' right of expressive association and CLS' right to be free from viewpoint discrimination. The district court ruled in favor of defendants, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, in March 2009, affirmed the district court's opinion. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court granted CLS's petition for certiorari, and oral arguments in Christian Legal Society v. Martínez are scheduled for April 19, 2010. Please join our distinguished panel of experts as they discuss the merits of this potentially landmark religious liberties case before the Court.

2009 National Lawyers Convention

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Guido Calabresi, Frank H. Easterbrook, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Paul S. Atkins, Randy E. Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, Linda Chavez, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cu�llar, Susan E. Dudley, Miguel Estrada, Richard A. Epstein, Steve Forbes, Maurice R. Greenberg, Michael S. Greve, Oona Hathaway, Peter N. Kirsanow, David G. Leitch, Michael W. McConnell, Burt Neuborne, Jeremy A. Rabkin, A. Raymond Randolph, Theodore M. Shaw, Stephen Bainbridge, Carlos T. Bea, Stephanie R. Breslow, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Alan E. Brownstein, Ronald A. Cass, John C. Eastman, C. Boyden Gray, Lisa Heinzerling, Edith H. Jones, David A. Katz, Brett M. Kavanaugh, F. Scott Kieff, Michael Livermore, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Paul G. Mahoney, Robert D. McTeer, Michael J. Meurer, Geoffrey P. Miller, Alan B. Morrison, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael Paese, Harvey L. Pitt, William H. Pryor Jr., Lucas "Scot" A. Powe Jr., Jamin Ben Raskin, Daniel B. Ravicher, Andrew J. Redleaf, Roberta Romano, David B. Sentelle, Catherine M. Sharkey, Amity Shlaes, Damon A. Silvers, Jerry E. Smith, Gigi B. Sohn, Ilya Somin, Bret Stephens, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Diane S. Sykes, Daniel E. Troy, J.W. Verret, Steven M.H. Wallman, John P. Walters, W. Bradley Wendel, Shirley J. Wilcher, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Stephen F. Williams, Todd J. Zywicki, John A. Allison, John S. Baker, Jr., Jennifer Walker Elrod, Malcolm M. Feeley, Thomas W. Hazlett, Roderick M. Hills Jr., Brian H. Hook, Daryl Joseffer, Annette L. Nazareth, Aryeh Neier, Jed Rubenfeld, Robert P. Young, Jr., David Zaring, Mark R. Levin, Thomas M. Hardiman, John F. Manning, William Black, Cornish F. Hitchcock, Steven J. Law, Harold Meyerson, Alex J. Pollock, Andrew L. Stern, Michael B. Mukasey, David Berenbaum, Robert M. McDowell, Mark F. Schultz, David M. McIntosh, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Seton Motley, Laura M. Olson, Marvin Ammori

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 12 through Saturday, November 14 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "The Federal Government's Economic Role in our Constitutional System." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 12 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

The Elimination of Conscience Clauses: An Assault on Religious Liberty?

Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 EST

Kevin J. Hasson, Marci A. Hamilton, Loretta Preska

Speakers:

Prof. Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Kevin Hasson, Chairman and President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Hon. Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Moderator)

Politics in the Pulpit

Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:00 EST

Benjamin W. Bull, Douglas Laycock, Barry W. Lynn, Donald B. Tobin, Steffen N. Johnson

In 1954, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas introduced legislative language that changed the IRS code, prohibiting non-profits and churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Does the Johnson Amendment constrain clergy from effectively imparting messages integral to their faith, or is it an appropriate safeguard to ensure that churches and government limit their respective activities? [Register now!]

Do Private School Tuition Tax Credits Violate the Religion Clauses of the Oregon Constitution?

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 EST

Charlie Hinkle, Kevin J. Hasson

Speakers:

Seamus Hasson, Founder & President, The Becket Fund
Charlie Hinkle, Stoel Rives and Past President, ACLU of Oregon

Gay Marriage and the Role of the Judiciary

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST

Charles J. Cooper, Maggie Gallagher, Lara Schwartz, Stuart S. Taylor, Jamin Ben Raskin The California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have all recently ruled on same-sex marriages. Were the decisions of these courts exercises in judicial activism? Or were these jurists, bound by their oath to uphold the state constitution, faithfully applying the law to a novel situation? Join us on October 23 for a panel discussion that will focus on the proper role of the judiciary. [Register now!]

Hein, One Year Later: The Future of Church-State Litigation

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EST

Alex J. Luchenitser, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Walter M. Weber, Robert W. Tuttle

In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, that taxpayers could not pursue a lawsuit claiming that conferences administered under the Bush Administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Our panel will focus on this decision and its impact on existing and future church-state litigation. [Register now!]

The Things That Are Not Caesar's: Religious Organizations as a Check on the Authoritarian Pretensions of the State

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

Patrick McKinley Brennan, Kenneth Grasso, Carl H. Esbeck, Gregory S. Baylor, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Thomas C. Berg, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle, Michael P. Moreland, John H. Mansfield, Douglas Laycock, John Garvey

Church autonomy issues are at the forefront of contemporary debates in church/state law. Such issues arise whenever the government seeks to impose a regulatory burden on a church or any religious organization. Often the regulatory burden comes in the form of generally applicable legislation that is facially neutral with respect to religion. The regulation may also take place through developments in the common law, such as claims sounding in tort, contract, trust, or real property.

To explore these issues in detail, the Federalist Society has gathered some of the leading law and religion scholars in America. Among the topics addressed at the conference will be the theological and historical roots of church autonomy in both the Catholic and Protestant traditions, the constitutional basis for the church autonomy doctrine in the First Amendment, and particular applications of church autonomy in torts, employment, and other areas of law.

2007 National Lawyers Convention

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Jamie Gorelick, Gail Heriot, Neal K. Katyal, Alex Kozinski, Andrew C. McCarthy, Michael W. McConnell, Edwin Meese III, Theodore B. Olson, Walter K. Olson, Stephen Reinhardt, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Alan Sekulow, Nadine Strossen, George J. Terwilliger III, David C. Vladeck, Eugene Volokh, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Audi, John S. Baker, Jr., Michael Barone, Bob Barr, Carlos T. Bea, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Janice Rogers Brown, James S. Burling, Steven G. Calabresi, Lawrence W. Casey, Ronald A. Cass, Brett M. Kavanaugh This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society and on November 15-17 we will be celebrating this milestone during our Annual National Lawyers Convention. The theme for this year's convention is "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." In addition to the numerous panels containing noted legal experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, The convention will also feature the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, to be delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. The highlight of the convention will be the 25th Anniversary Gala, attended by many more special guests, which will be held in the Main Hall of Washington, DC's Union Station.
[Register now!]

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply. On June 21, the Federalist Society presented a live audiocast of a panel of experts who discussed these issues and more. [Click here to listen to a replay of this event]

Gonzales v. Carhart: Its Aftermath and Implications for Abortion Regulation and Jurisprudence

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not violate a constitutional right to abortion. The 5-4 decision in the case, Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld, for the first time, a law that bans a specific abortion method, even though it does not contain an explicit exception for considering the mother’s health. The action now moves to the states, where many legislatures are expected to consider new abortion restrictions and strengthen old ones. This whirlwind of action in state legislatures will likely produce accompanying activity before the nation’s courts, since new abortion restrictions are likely to be challenged. Join our panel of prominent experts as they discuss the recent ruling and examine how it might ultimately affect the abortion debate as well as abortion jurisprudence. [Register here]