Free Exercise and Religious Freedom
The Trinity Lutheran case is the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest religious liberty decision. Learn more about this important case with the overview update.
Read more about Theresa's debate defending Religious Liberty in the Public Square.
This post is an update to the “Local Government and Legislative Prayer--Can They Pray or Not?” post.
A multi-chapter resource about whether or not you can you have a union at a religious college, and what the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has to say about the matter.
Theresa Sidebotham of Telios Law and co-counsel Craig Shultz of Shultz Law are celebrating a victory at trial in Wichita, Kansas.
How should responsible nonprofits be organized under the Internal Revenue Code if they wish to educate, inform, and advocate on politically sensitive issues within the public arena? This article is intended to help nonprofit leaders to answer these questions, so that they can be encouraged to speak up on important issues in the public arena without being chilled in their free speech activities or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Thomas Berg has written an interesting article suggesting that progressives should improve their commitment to religious liberty for traditionalists. Progressives understand, forinstance, that the recent HHS contraceptive mandate impinges on religious liberty. But, as they will tell you, they just don’t care when the issue is one that is important to them, such as access to reproductive choice or gay rights.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) makes the government meet a very tough standard for a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, including for churches. Obviously an important initial question is whether the regulation does impose a substantial burden. A Fourth Circuit case issued January 31, 2013, Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council, develops the “substantial burden” standard in a way that may help other churches facing zoning issues.
A group of eight Muslim men detained in the aftermath of 9/11 filed claims against a number of government officials in a case called Turkmen v. Ashcroft, including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Director of the FBI, the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and personnel at the detention center where they were held. Ultimately, the Muslim men were charged with immigration violations, but not terrorism.