Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear Religious Scarf

[Christopher Lund]

Say that Directive #78 had a ban on specifically religious attire.  (That sort of classification does happen.  Pennsylvania, like some other states, has a statute that forbids public school teachers from wearing religious garb * a statute that both the district and appellate court mention in Webb for support.)  
 
As per what Professor Cruz said earlier, is there widespread agreement that this rule would be invalid under the Smith/Lukumi Free Exercise Clause? 
 
I certainly think so.  But I have a hard time reconciling this with Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist., 480 U.S. 942 (1987), where the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to an Oregon statute that forbade public school teachers from wearing religious dress.  Does anyone know what to make of Cooper in this post-Smith day and age?
 
Best,
Chris
 
______________________
Christopher C. Lund
Assistant Professor of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
151 E. Griffith St.
Jackson, MS  39201
(601) 925-7141 (office)
(601) 925-7113 (fax)
Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 

>>> dcruz at law.usc.edu 4/8/2009 10:24 AM >>>

I don't understand why counsel would not have argued starting with the
complaint that a rule against wearing *religious* symbols or attire was
not a "neutral law of general applicability" and thus should receive
strict scrutiny under the federal Free Exercise Clause.

David B. Cruz
Professor of Law
University of Southern California Gould School of Law
699 Exposition Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
U.S.A.

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:05 AM
To: Religionlaw
Subject: Law.com - 3rd Circuit Rejects Muslim Cop's Bid to Wear
Religious Scarf

A Muslim woman who works as a Philadelphia police officer has lost her
court
battle to wear a religious head scarf on the job now that the 3rd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that forcing the department to
accommodate her would compromise the city's interest in maintaining
"religious neutrality" in its police force.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429736190 
_______________________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090408/e7839c6d/attachment.htm>