OMx-D: semiempirical methods with orthogonalization and dispersion corrections. Implementation and biochemical application

The semiempirical methods of the OMx family (orthogonalization models OM1, OM2, and OM3) are known to describe biochemical systems more accurately than standard semiempirical approaches such as AM1. We investigate the benefits of augmenting these methods with an empirical dispersion term (OMx-D) taken from recent density functional work, without modifying the standard OMx parameters. Significant improvements are achieved for non-covalent interactions, with mean unsigned errors of 1.41 kcal/mol (OM2-D) and 1.31 kcal/mol (OM3-D) for the binding energy of the complexes in the JSCH-2005 data base. This supports the use of these augmented methods in quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) studies of biomolecules, for example during system preparation and equilibration. As an illustrative application, we present QM and QM/MM calculations on the binding between antibody 34E4 and a hapten, where OM3-D performs better than the methods without dispersion terms (AM1, OM3)

Civil Procedure and the Ministerial Exception

In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a ministerial exception to the ordinary rules of employer liability. The Court also concluded that the exception operates as an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar. This conclusion raises quite significant questions about how courts should address the exception in the course of litigation. This Article posits that courts should approach these procedural questions in light of the underlying justification for the ministerial exception. The exception reflects a longstanding constitutional limitation on the competence of courts to resolve “strictly and purely ecclesiastical” questions. To conclude that the exception operates as an affirmative defense does not alter this fundamental limitation on the authority of secular courts. As a practical matter, this means that in litigation between religious institutions and their employees, courts may be required to manage discovery to resolve threshold questions about the application of the ministerial exception before permitting broader discovery. Similarly, courts should consider permitting interlocutory appeals of trial court decisions that deny motions for summary judgment based on the exception. And courts not only should conclude that religious institutions do not waive the defense by failing to raise it but also ought to raise it sua sponte when the facts indicate that the exception may apply. These departures from the ordinary treatment of affirmative defenses are necessary to respect the constitutional principles that the Court articulated in Hosanna-Tabor

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

Notes on the Salamander, Eurycea longicauda guttolineata, in Florida

But little work has been published on this subspecies. This study is based on a collection made with Richard E. Etheridge in the summer of 1949. While Carr (1940) lists Eurycea l. guttolineata as uncom­ mon in Florida, we were able to collect some 180 specimens in the northern part of the State. These are now deposited in our private collections, or in the Tulane University collection

Foster Care and the Growing Tension Between the Religion Clauses: A Comment on Rogers v. HHS

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the State of South Carolina agreed to waive their requirements of religious non-discrimination by state-funded, licensed child placement agencies. The state had discovered that its largest provider, Miracle Hill, approved the applications of only those who shared its Evangelical Protestant faith. Eden Rogers and Brandy Welch, a Unitarian, married same-sex couple, applied to Miracle Hill to be certified as foster parents. After Miracle Hill refused on religious grounds to assess the couple’s fitness, the couple filed suit against various federal and state defendants, alleging that the waivers constituted an establishment of religion and violated the couple’s right to equal protection. The federal district court refused defendants’ motion to dismiss the couple’s Establishment Clause claim. In light of the Supreme Court decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021), Carolina renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Miracle Hill’s right to the Free Exercise of Religion requires the state to waive its prohibition on religion-based discrimination by child placement agencies. This paper explores South Carolina’s argument that Miracle Hill’s purported free exercise rights render irrelevant constraints that the Establishment Clause might place on such accommodations. In this context, the state’s reliance on Fulton is misplaced. Here, the state should be deemed constitutionally responsible for the religion-based exclusion of prospective foster parents. More controversially, I argue that the state should also be held constitutionally responsible for the religious indoctrination of children placed with families approved by Miracle Hill. Such responsibility has long been and should remain a central concern of the Establishment Clause, and overcomes any countervailing free exercise interests of Miracle Hill or other faith-based providers. This focus on responsibility offers significant depth and nuance to conventional but vague Establishment Clause concepts about state support of religion. The author is the David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor in Law and Religion at the George Washington University Law School

Hon. John Alfred Poor, of Portland, Me.

A hand-bound copy of an article on John Alfred Poor published in New-England Historical and Genealogical Register and Antiquarian Journal, vol. XXVI, no. 4, October, 1872

Flight data display studies for real time computer flight evaluation Final report

Real time displays for in-flight monitoring of Saturn launch vehicle

Historic Preservation Grants To Houses Of Workship: A Case Study in the Survival of Separationism

Many states have historic preservation regulations that, as applied to properties owned by religious entities, have been challenged on free exercise grounds. Historic preservation programs, however, also include government grants for preservation efforts, and no court has yet been asked to rule on the permissibility of such grants. This Article analyzes the existing Supreme Court precedent on state financial support for the construction or preservation of places of worship or religious teaching. After briefly reviewing the movement from Separationists to Neutralism, this Article collects and appraises materials on historic preservation, which reveal a remarkable degree of disparity in preservation policies, as various levels of government struggle with changes in the relevant law. This Article concludes by invoking a principle of Religion Clause symmetry—what the government may regulate it may also subsidize—and by suggesting that the religionspecific line between permissible and impermissible subsidy (and regulation) should be drawn between the exteriors and interiors of houses of worship

Our Class Action Federalism: Erie and the Rules Enabling Act after Shady Grove

The article offers information on the class action litigation which is related to the adjudication of highly concerned class actions. It states that the decisions related to the class actions lie in the statements discussed in the Erie Doctrine. It also informs that the particular issues and situations in a case defines the use of federal law and state law in the U.S