In light of Espinoza today, it is worth remembering that Lemon v Kurtzman was initially litigated in 1969 on establishment clause *and* equal protection (race discrimination) grounds. Alton Lemon was a named plaintiff, along with the Pennsylvania NAACP, PA ACLU and others. /1
I mention this in part because both the Court and Justice Alito discuss the history of anti-Catholic bigotry, relying in part on this excellent and important article by John Jeffries and Jim Ryan (J&R), A Political History of the Establishment Clause repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewconten… /2
But there is some irony in the Court (and Alito) relying on J&R, first because they tell a political, not doctrinal, story about how the Court’s establishment clause jurisprudence has changed so dramatically, and second, because in addition to surveying anti-Catholic views ... /3
J&R also explain how white Protestants came to be aligned with Catholics in supporting gov’t funding of private schools. That story is mainly about desegregation and the rise of white Christian academies in the south. /4
In the 1960s, separation of church and state was a civil rights issue in part because demands for state aid were increasingly driven by the interests of white evangelicals opposed to integrating public schools /5
This history is lost in the Espinoza opinions today, which focus on religious animus in the history of separationism. But readers will find a richer and more complicated history in J&R’s work, with many more actors, interests, and motivations. /6
And of course there are other histories that should complicate all this further, but given the Court’s citations to J&R, it’s worth remembering that systemic racism has also played an important, but often overlooked, role in the recent history of separating church and state. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you're a Reform or Conservative Jews who is concerned about religious liberty and reproductive rights, you should read this amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund, which explicitly attacks the sincerity of the Jewish plaintiffs in Indiana./1
The charge that liberal and progressive believers are insincere has moved from "tentative thoughts" to become the formal legal position of prominent religious conservatives, all in the span of about six months. /2
A reminder that until 2021, no state or federal court in the history of the United States had held that a religious liberty provision required exemptions from vaccination requirements. Here CA6 grants injunctive relief for a class of 10,000 members of the U.S. Air Force. /1
This opinion continues the trend of conservative judges ignoring the harms, especially to those who are unvaccinated, of COVID-19. There is no mention of the number of deaths in the U.S. You could read the opinion and not know that 1.1 million people have died from COVID. /2
This CA6 panel follows the dissents of Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas in relying on medical exceptions to reject USAF's compelling interests. Will these judges/justices apply this type of reasoning in cases involving abortion prohibitions? (@RichSchragger, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…) /3
1. The Court's overruling of Lemon entails rejecting that laws must have a secular purpose. That principle is part of what grounds our freedom and equality, including for women and those in the LGBTQ community. religionandpolitics.org/2015/06/29/obe…
2. The school prayer cases are next. The Court has cleared the way for overruling Engel and Schempp. Conservatives will say those decisions are inconsistent with historical practice. Expect to see more commentary/briefing urging this result and eventually test cases.
3. The wages of appeasement are visible in the dissenting opinion. Before this case, Breyer and Kagan had not explained their support of Lemon or the endorsement test. Now they join Sotomayor in doing so. But why did they wait until Lemon was overruled to defend it? @NelsonTebbe
One answer is a matter of legal strategy. Under prevailing free exercise doctrine, if the gov’t grants any secular exceptions that undermine a law’s purpose, it has to grant religious exemptions that are comparable in terms of undermining that purpose. /2
Some abortion laws are going to have secular exceptions (to protect the mother’s life or in cases of rape and incest). If the Court applies its doctrine consistently — a big if — it would have to apply strict scrutiny to denials of religious exemptions in those cases. /3
This is a conservative trial balloon for rejecting religious exemptions for abortion by denying the sincerity of liberal Jews. But the core argument here is nothing less than an assault on the free exercise rights of liberal believers more generally. /1
The argument begins with the claim that free exercise rights are violated only when the state imposes a “substantial burden.” And that only happens when the state forces a believer to do something that conflicts with a religious obligation. /2
There is, in fact, no requirement in the doctrine that someone be religiously obligated in order to show a substantial burden — and there are numerous cases and plenty of statutory language that conflict with such a requirement. /3
Excellent🧵by @ProfLWiley on federal district court’s decision in Maine rejecting religious exemptions for health care vax mandate. This decision is better reasoned that NDNY’s and should be studied by other courts confronting these issues. /1
What the Maine court gets right is that the medical and religious exceptions aren’t comparable. Here’s the central point: /2
Judge Levy is also right that the medical exception does not devalue or express disregard for religious views. This passage is important — Maine treats equally religious and philosophical vax objections. It doesn’t place special burdens on religion. /3