Federalist Society with the American Constitution Society and the National Constitution Center
The Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from requiring closely held corporations to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
The National Constitution Center, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society convene the first in a series of constitutional debates to be held across America. In the inaugural debate, Frederick Gedicks of Brigham Young University and Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond argue for and against the motion: "Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided."
This debate was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.
- Prof. Frederick Gedicks, Brigham Young University
- Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond
- Moderator: Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO, National Constitution Center
- Introduction: Ms. Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society
The opinions expressed in this debate are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
Familiar accounts of religious freedom in the United States often tell a story of visionary founders who broke from the centuries-old patterns of Christendom to establish a political arrangement committed to secular and religiously neutral government. These novel commitments were supposedly embodied in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. But this story is largely a fairytale, University of San Diego School of Law Prof. Steven D. Smith says in this incisive examination of a much-mythologized subject. He makes the case that the American achievement was not a rejection of Christian commitments but a retrieval of classic Christian ideals of freedom of the church and freedom of conscience.
In The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom, Prof. Smith maintains that the distinctive American contribution to religious freedom was not in the First Amendment, which was intended merely to preserve the political status quo in matters of religion. What was important was the commitment to open contestation between secularist and providentialist understandings of the nation which evolved over the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, far from vindicating constitutional principles, as conventional wisdom suggests, the Supreme Court imposed secular neutrality, which effectively repudiated this commitment to open contestation. Rather than upholding what was distinctively American and constitutional, these decisions subverted it. The negative consequences are visible today in the incoherence of religion clause jurisprudence and the intense culture wars in American politics. Prof. Smith was joined by Prof. John Inazu of Washington University (Saint Louis) Law School to discuss the premises, analysis, and conclusions of Prof. Smith’s book.
SCOTUScast 3-11-15 featuring Rachel Paulose
- Prof. Steven D. Smith, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
- John Inazu, Washington University School of Law
On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. This case asks whether knowledge of a required Title VII religious accommodation and an applicant or employee's clear notice of their "religious observance or practice" to their prospective or current employer is required for an employer to be held liable for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for choosing not to hire an applicant or dismissing an employee because of said "religious observance or practice."
To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate Confirmed United States Attorney. Religious Liberties Practice Group Podcast
Miriam Ibrahim is a Sudanese woman who was arrested in Sudan and charged with adultery in August 2013 on the grounds that her marriage to a Christian man from South Sudan was void under Sudan's version of Islamic law, which says Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims. The court added the charge of apostasy in February 2014, and she was sentenced to hang after refusing to renounce Christianity. Though her father was Muslim, he left her Ethiopian Orthodox mother to raise her from early childhood, and she was raised a Christian. Though she eventually was released in July 2014 and is now living in the United States, her arrest raises the question of whether and how the United States should respond to instances of the denial of religious freedom in other countries.
Short video with Rachel Paulose discussing EEOC v. Abercrombie
- Prof. Thomas F. Farr, Senior Fellow and Director, Religious Freedom Project, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Georgetown University
- Tina Ramírez, Founder and Executive Director, Hardwired, Inc.
Rachel K. Paulose February 26, 2015
Former US Attorney for Minnesota, Rachel Paulose, explains the issues in dispute before the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie in which a 17-year-old Muslim applicant alleges employment discrimination when Abercrombie refused to hire her as a "model" because of her religious head-covering. Abercrombie denies the allegation.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.