The First Amendment, Moral Law and Abortion: The Conflict between Fetal Rights & Freedom of Religion

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara P. Billauer
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Moral Law ◽  
Fetal Rights

V. Civil Liberties

1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Military Power ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's decisions dealing with civil liberties in the ten years under review fall into four groups: (1) cases involving the rights protected by the First Amendment—freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; (2) those concerned with racial discrimination; (3) cases enlarging the power of the federal government to protect civil rights against invasion by private persons; (4) war-time cases arising out of conflicts between civil liberty and military power. Decisions dealing with procedural due process and other rights of those accused of crime are discussed in another part of this symposium.I. FIRST AMENDMENT—FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLYDuring the decade we are examining, the Supreme Court not only has decided a substantial number of cases involving freedom of speech, press, and religion, but it has developed a new and important judicial philosophy or doctrine with respect to them. In this judicial doctrine, three principles are fused. The first is that the four liberties protected by the First Amendment are so indispensable to the democratic process and to the preservation of the freedom of our people that they occupy a preferred place in our scheme of constitutional values.

“Religion always wins” rules are bad for religious liberty

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-92
Author(s):  
Andrew Koppelman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Hobby Lobby

This chapter examines the First Amendment doctrine that the Supreme Court is now developing. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court’s most important recent decision on accommodation, is no victory for religious liberty. It replaces the sensible regime of balancing with a rule whereby religion will almost always be given special treatment, even if that means that nonadherents suffer enormous harm. If this is now to be the authoritative meaning of freedom of religion, then the consensus that once supported it will inevitably collapse. This chapter shows the destructive implications of the decision for the discrimination question—implications that have already been drawn by several federal courts.

scholarly journals United States Supreme Court Approach to First Amendment Freedom of Religion in Response to the COVID Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-261
Author(s):  
Delaine Russell Swenson
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Public Health And Safety

The 2020-21 Covid 19 Pandemic has raised many legal challenges as governments world-wide have struggled to deal with the public health and safety challenges of Covid. At the center of many of these decisions is the need to balance public health protections against other rights that have been infringed by legislation related to Covid Pandemic restrictions. One of the most important rights that have been implicated by Covid restrictions in the United States has been in the area of restrictions on religious worship which implicates the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in the United States Constitution. During the time of the Pandemic the United States Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of the United States Constitution has had to work to balance the interests of the government in protecting public health and safety with the right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court’s approach to these cases reflects the difficulties inherent in balancing two such important interests in difficult circumstances and also represents the reality of the shifting majority in the Court as a result of new Justices appointed under the administration of Donald Trump. The Court has transitioned from a majority that opposed restrictions on governmental action during COVID to a majority that is more willing to stop governmental action that is deemed to be in violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.

'Liking' on Facebook and the First Amendment

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Bregant ◽  
Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document