Church-State-Feldman-Sp07

Church-State-Feldman-Sp07 - CHURCH & STATE OUTLINE...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PROF. NOAH FELDMAN SPRING 2007 Boundaries of Liberty Sherbert v. Verner - She can’t get work b/c all jobs in area (mill jobs) req. her to work Sat. –law says to be eligible for unemployment must take available work offered by unemployment office unless have good cause not to -- state doesn’t consider religious reasons (Sat. sabbath) as good cause - Free Exercise argument – she must choose bet. following her religion and qualifying for benefits o State can’t say religious reason isn’t good clause not to work o Doctrine of unconstitutional conditions – state can’t condition a benefit on unconstitutional basis - Court rules law unconstitutional -- compares this to fining S for worshiping on Sat. o Seems to be then that what court is saying is that since state has created good cause exception it must include religious reasons under good cause o Thus it would seem that if the law had been written w/o good cause exception she would lose b/c there would be no baseline to compare herself to - Braunfeld v. Brown (Blue Laws case) o Law is invalid if effect of it is to impede observance of religion or discriminate invidiously bet. religions even if burden is indirect - Court says the difference is In B there was a secular purpose – uniform day off for everyone - Standard interpretation of S case is when law imposes substantial burden on exercise person must be granted exception unless state can produce compelling state interest not to exempt him - Stewart’s opinion o This overrules Caldor case – law that allows people to choose their day off based on religion invalid b/c favors religion o S thinks religion should be advantaged or positively protected so he’s ok w/ result here – he doesn’t believe neutrality req.’d - Neutrality paradox – if protect free exercise by giving religious reasons special exemptions may violate establishment clause by favoring religion over irreligion - Brennan says when regulatory structure favors religion violates est. clause but when lone individual treated differently to allow them to exercise religion it’s ok Employment Division v. Smith - What is the relationship bet. fact pattern in Smith and Sherbert ?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
o Both cases deal w/ people who lost jobs for reasons related to religious practices then claimed unemployment from state but were denied o Difference is Smith religious activity was illegal - Scalia’s maj. denies that this issue should even receive strict scrutiny – - When a law creates a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise and where that exercise is central to person’s religion the state must provide an exemption for that person - When law incidentally burdens religious exercise & law is neutral & generally applicable law is constitutional even if substantially burdens religious exercise o If there is in place a system of exemptions in place like in Sherbert state must provide an exemption to a religious reason
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 26

Church-State-Feldman-Sp07 - CHURCH & STATE OUTLINE...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online