Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?

[Volokh, Eugene]

	In the hybrid rights section, Scalia wrote, "And it is easy to
envision a case in which a challenge on freedom of association grounds
would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns."  I
wouldn't exactly call this express, but it does seem designed to leave
open room precisely for the ministerial exception.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Horwitz
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:47 PM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
> 
> I honestly can't recall, although I didn't think he had, so 
> this is not too much of a loaded question -- but where in 
> Smith does Justice Scalia "expressly" carve out the 
> ministerial exception?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Paul Horwitz
> Visiting Associate Professor
> Notre Dame Law School
> 
> 
> >From: Lawyer2974 at aol.com
> >Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
> ><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
> >To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >Subject: Re: Landmark First Amendment Religion Litigation?
> >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:32:49 EST
> >
> >In a message dated 1/26/2007 5:26:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> >mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:
> >That is all well and good, but I have the sense that the Court 
> >nonetheless applied secular norms in some post-Wolf cases, indeed 
> >perhaps going so far as to constitutionalize a 
> Congregationalist polity 
> >even in hierarchical churches (be they Episcopalian or 
> Presbyterian in 
> >their polity).  If this isn't the application of secular norms, then 
> >what is it?
> >
> >As to the post-Wolf cases, it is difficult to argue that they can be 
> >easily reconciled, there being a real difference on the precise 
> >question of secular norms.  I think that the law is anything 
> but clear, 
> >post-Wolf.
> >
> >One more point, the property dispute cases involving Eastern 
> Orthodox 
> >Churches certainly reflect secular norms -- a dislike of 
> communism, for 
> >openers.
> >Even Justice Scalia expressly carved out the Ministerial 
> Exception in 
> >Employment Div. v. Smith (neutral laws of general applicability 
> >analysis)...it is a little dfifficult to respond to your 
> "sense" that 
> >the Court applied secular norms without you referring to 
> specific cases 
> >from which you derive that sense....
> >
> >Donald C. Clark, Jr.
> >2333 Waukegan Road
> >Suite 160
> >Bannockburn, Illinois 60015
> >847-236-0900
> >847-236-0909 (fax)
> >
> >
> >This message is a PRIVATE communication. This message and all 
> >attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm 
> and may be 
> >confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended 
> >recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
> >distribution or use of the information contained in or 
> attached to this 
> >message is strictly prohibited.  Please notify the sender of the 
> >delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete 
> it from your system.  Thank you.
> >
> >
> >*************************************************************
> **********
> >*******
> >**************************
> >
> >IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:  To comply with requirements imposed by 
> >the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained 
> >herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated 
> >otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot 
> be used, 
> >for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the 
> Internal Revenue 
> >Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another 
> party any 
> >transaction or matter herein.
> 
> 
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, 
> >unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as 
> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages 
> that are 
> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
> can (rightly 
> >or
> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To 
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
>