Blog post 3.2


  1. They both involve state constitutional provisions that prohibited those states frumps ending money to "aid" churches and other religious institutions. 
  2. The provision could prohibit the state from providing police or fire protection. They would have to let the church burn.
  3. They might be forced to choose between attending a school that lines up with their beliefs or receive thousands of dollars in government benefits.
  4. They spend an average of $11392 per student.
  5. He said that denying a generally available benefit solely on a account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest of the highest order.
  6. They will either declare the case moot or follow Rucho v. Common Cause, which held that federal courts may not even consider the challenges to partisan gerrymanders.
  7. The core question is whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans.
  8. US v. Lee set the general rule in "religious liberty" cases that people of faith math sometimes seek exemptions from laws they object to on religious grounds but not an exemption that would undercut the right of a third party.
  9. Hobby Lobby case erased the old rule that religious objectors may not undercut the rights of people who do not share their beliefs.
  10. Trump basically gave the courts all the religious rights it asked for. Also, Gorsuch who occupies the seat that was vacant in at the beginning of Trump's administration, is a staunch conservative, making his views on religion cases more predictable. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Iowa Caucus

blog 3.6

Blog 3.3