Threading Between the Religion Clauses

A careful review of the overall record suggests that Pres Clinton\u27s Administration has been more solicitous of the First Amendment\u27s Religious Clauses as a whole than can normally be expected of elected national officials and their appointees

Government Partnerships With Faith-based Service Providers: The State of the Law

Rapid change and significant uncertainty are the most noteworthy features of the legal environment for participation by faith-based organizations ("FBOs") in government-financed socialservices. Developments in federal constitutional law, statutorily based federal programs, and the administrative environment have altered the legal circumstances in which such opportunities mayappear. In addition, the body of law (federal, state, and local) concerning the employment relation, an emerging focus on state constitutional law, and the existing pattern of contractual relations between government entities and FBOs, contribute to an atmosphere of legal complexity surrounding this field. These patterns of change and uncertainty play a crucial role in the decisions of FBOs on the value and risks involved in participating in such programs, as well as in decisions by government agencies concerning whether and how to undertake such programs.The topics included are 1) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution, including recent cases involving the application of that Clause to FBOs in service partnerships with government; 2) state constitutional law as a source of impediments to state relationships with FBOs, and federal constitutional challenges to such impediments; 3) the law of employment discrimination – federal, state, and local – as it applies to FBOs in such partnerships; 4) federal programs that explicitly invite participation by FBOs; and 5) state social service contracts with FBOs, and the presence or absence of religionspecific provisions in such contracts

The Centennial of Meyer and Pierce: Parents’ Rights, Gender-Affirming Care, and Issues in Education

This paper was prepared for a Symposium marking the centennial of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). At their inception, Meyer and Pierce reflected constitutional principles of economic freedom and parental control of their children’s education. Part I traces the path of ideas put in motion by Meyer and Pierce. These include the decline of their economic freedom component and the broader grounding of their doctrines of parental authority. Eventually, the legacy of Meyer and Pierce expanded to include First Amendment concerns of religious exercise and knowledge acquisition; Fourteenth Amendment themes of minority vulnerability; family privacy; and parental concerns beyond education. Part II searches for lessons from the Meyer-Pierce legacy in several contemporary contexts. Part II.A. focuses on a topic where Meyer-Pierce rights seem exceptionally strong -- regulation of parental consent to gender-affirming medical care for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. Petitions for certiorari in cases on this subject, arising out of Kentucky and Tennessee, are now pending at the Supreme Court, and a grant seems likely. Part II. B. analyzes issues in education. These include parents’ rights to control the content of public-school curricula, including instruction about matters of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity; to receive information about gender-related changes in how their children present themselves at school; and to gain access to the financial support of the state in making educational choices, including religious education. In all these contexts, Meyer-Pierce rights appear in varying degrees of relevance and strength. Comparison among them illuminates the current scope and likely future of parents’ constitutional rights