Version 2 2024-06-17, 23:56Version 2 2024-06-17, 23:56
Version 1 2017-04-10, 15:20Version 1 2017-04-10, 15:20
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-17, 23:56authored byZD Robinson
Change in the First Amendment landscape tends toward the incremental,
but the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion two terms ago in Hosanna-
Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOCholding
that religious institutions enjoy a range of First Amendment protections
that do not extend to other individuals or organizations-is better
understood as a jurisprudential earthquake. And yet, it could be that the
biggest aftershock has yet to be felt, with the Court leaving open the most
important functional question that exists in scenarios where there will be
constitutional winners and losers: what, or who, is a "religious institution"
for First Amendment purposes? Although lower federal courts have begun
to grapple with the question, no satisfactory approach exists. This Article
proposes a framework for distinguishing between those institutions that
fall within the scope of the religious institutions category and those that
do not. The framework proposed proceeds from a purposive analysis that
turns on which institutions will most often and most effectively use the
newly identified and exclusive protections to benefit society as a whole.
To this end, the framework favors institutions that have as their purpose:
(1) protection of individual conscience; (2) protection of group rights; and
(3) provision of desirable societal structures.
History
Journal
Boston College Law Review
Volume
55:181
Pagination
181-234
Location
United States
ISSN
0161-6587
Language
eng
Publication classification
C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal, C Journal article
Copyright notice
University of California, Hastings College of the Law 2014