In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the SupremeCourt extended a recent trend of invalidating the application of antidiscrimination rules that protected LGBTQ people, stating that such applications violated the First Amendment’s FreeExerciseClause. In 2018, theCourt ruled for an evangelical baker who said that the application of a state antidiscrimination law to his refusal to bake a cake to celebrate the union of a gay couple violated his free exercise right. In these two recent cases, the Court expressed rhetorical support for LGBTQ people’s interest in equal treatment. The holding in each case, however, privileged the asserted free exercise right over the competing equality interest. At
在富尔顿诉费城市案(Fulton v. City of Philadelphia)中，最高法院延续了最近的一种趋势，即废除保护LGBTQ人群的反歧视规则的应用，称这种应用违反了第一修正案的自由行使条款。2018年，法院对一名福音派面包师做出了判决，他说，州反歧视法适用于他拒绝为一对同性恋夫妇烤蛋糕庆祝的行为侵犯了他的自由行使权。在最近的两起案件中，最高法院对LGBTQ群体要求平等待遇的诉求表示了口头上的支持。然而，在每一个案件的判决中，所主张的自由行使权利都优先于与之竞争的平等利益。在
{"title":"What Christianity Loses When Conservative Christians Win at The Supreme Court","authors":"Russell K. Robinson","doi":"10.1086/719566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719566","url":null,"abstract":"In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the SupremeCourt extended a recent trend of invalidating the application of antidiscrimination rules that protected LGBTQ people, stating that such applications violated the First Amendment’s FreeExerciseClause. In 2018, theCourt ruled for an evangelical baker who said that the application of a state antidiscrimination law to his refusal to bake a cake to celebrate the union of a gay couple violated his free exercise right. In these two recent cases, the Court expressed rhetorical support for LGBTQ people’s interest in equal treatment. The holding in each case, however, privileged the asserted free exercise right over the competing equality interest. At","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47322378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations far more frequently than its predecessors—over 81% of the time, compared to about 50% for all previous eras since 1953. In most of these cases, the winning religion was a mainstream Christian organization, whereas in the past pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations. A statistical analysis suggests that this transformation is largely the result of changes in the Court’s personnel: a majority of Roberts Court justices are ideologically conservative and religiously devout—a significant break from the past. We also explore other possible explanations. The Roberts Court has handed down a number of decisions that suggest a new approach to Court’s religion jurisprudence. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide weak but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values. The religion clauses provided little protection for mainstream religions—indeed, under the establishment clause, mainstream religion’s influence over government policy was restricted. Under the Roberts Court, the religion clauses have increasingly been used to protect mainstream Christian values or organizations that are under threat from secular laws or liberal constitutional protections. Or so it has been argued. Some legal scholars have denounced this apparent turn to the right, while others see only small changes that incrementally move the jurisprudence in a direction more faithful to constitutional values.2 It is always hazardous to claim a “transformation” in the law, especially in medias res. Ideological or jurisprudential disagreements can be lost in the complexities of the facts. The justices 1 Lee Epstein is the Ethan A.H. Shepley Distinguished University Professor at Washington University in St. Louis; Eric Posner is the Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law and the Arthur and Esther Kane Research Chair at the University of Chicago. Epstein thanks the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and Washington University for supporting her research on judicial behavior. We thank Aziz Huq for helpful comments, and Sima Biondi, Lina Dayem, Kelly Gregg, Kenny Mok, and Candice Yandem, for research assistance. The project’s website (http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/ReligionInCourt.html) will house a full replication archive, including the data and documentation necessary to reproduce all results. 2 See Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, Symposium: The unfolding revolution in the jurisprudence of the religion clauses (SCOTUSblog, Aug 6 2020), archived at https://perma.cc/43BS-KQAS; Richard Garnett, Symposium: Religious freedom and the Roberts court’s doctrinal clean-up (Scotusblog, Aug 7 2020), archived at https://perma.cc/7P5E-HP4Z; Kim Colby, Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need
罗伯茨法院做出有利于宗教组织的裁决的频率远高于其前任——超过81%的时间，而自1953年以来，所有前任的这一比例约为50%。在大多数情况下，获胜的宗教是主流基督教组织，而在过去，支持宗教的结果更倾向于少数或边缘宗教组织。一项统计分析表明，这种转变在很大程度上是最高法院人员变动的结果：罗伯茨法院的大多数法官在意识形态上保守，宗教上虔诚，这与过去有着重大的不同。我们还探讨了其他可能的解释。罗伯茨法院作出了一系列裁决，为法院的宗教判例提供了一种新的方法。《第一修正案》的宗教条款一度被认为为非主流宗教提供了微弱但有意义的保护，使其免受支持主流基督教组织、实践或价值观的政府的歧视。宗教条款几乎没有为主流宗教提供保护——事实上，根据确立条款，主流宗教对政府政策的影响受到了限制。在罗伯茨法院的领导下，宗教条款越来越多地被用来保护主流基督教价值观或受到世俗法律或自由宪法保护威胁的组织。有人认为是这样。一些法律学者谴责了这种明显的右倾，而另一些学者则只看到了一些微小的变化，这些变化使法学逐渐朝着更忠实于宪法价值观的方向发展。2声称法律的“转变”总是危险的，尤其是在媒体的报道中。意识形态或法学上的分歧可能会在事实的复杂性中消失。法官1 Lee Epstein是圣路易斯华盛顿大学的Ethan A.H.Shepley杰出大学教授；Eric Posner是芝加哥大学Kirkland&Ellis杰出服务法学教授和Arthur and Esther Kane研究主席。爱泼斯坦感谢约翰·西蒙·古根海姆基金会、国家科学基金会和华盛顿大学对她司法行为研究的支持。我们感谢Aziz Huq的有益评论，以及Sima Biondi、Lina Dayem、Kelly Gregg、Kenny Mok和Candice Yandem的研究协助。项目网站(http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/ReligionInCourt.html)将包含完整的复制存档，包括复制所有结果所需的数据和文档。2见Erwin Chemerinsky和Howard Gillman，研讨会：宗教条款判例中正在展开的革命（SCOTUS博客，2020年8月6日），存档于https://perma.cc/43BS-KQAS；Richard Garnett，研讨会：宗教自由和罗伯茨法院的教义清理（Scotusblog，2020年8月7日），存档于https://perma.cc/7P5E-HP4Z；Kim Colby，研讨会：自由锻炼、RFRA和宪法安全网的必要性（Scotusblog，8月1日
{"title":"The Roberts Court and the Transformation of Constitutional Protections for Religion: A Statistical Portrait","authors":"L. Epstein, E. Posner","doi":"10.1086/719348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/719348","url":null,"abstract":"The Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations far more frequently than its predecessors—over 81% of the time, compared to about 50% for all previous eras since 1953. In most of these cases, the winning religion was a mainstream Christian organization, whereas in the past pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations. A statistical analysis suggests that this transformation is largely the result of changes in the Court’s personnel: a majority of Roberts Court justices are ideologically conservative and religiously devout—a significant break from the past. We also explore other possible explanations. The Roberts Court has handed down a number of decisions that suggest a new approach to Court’s religion jurisprudence. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide weak but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values. The religion clauses provided little protection for mainstream religions—indeed, under the establishment clause, mainstream religion’s influence over government policy was restricted. Under the Roberts Court, the religion clauses have increasingly been used to protect mainstream Christian values or organizations that are under threat from secular laws or liberal constitutional protections. Or so it has been argued. Some legal scholars have denounced this apparent turn to the right, while others see only small changes that incrementally move the jurisprudence in a direction more faithful to constitutional values.2 It is always hazardous to claim a “transformation” in the law, especially in medias res. Ideological or jurisprudential disagreements can be lost in the complexities of the facts. The justices 1 Lee Epstein is the Ethan A.H. Shepley Distinguished University Professor at Washington University in St. Louis; Eric Posner is the Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law and the Arthur and Esther Kane Research Chair at the University of Chicago. Epstein thanks the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and Washington University for supporting her research on judicial behavior. We thank Aziz Huq for helpful comments, and Sima Biondi, Lina Dayem, Kelly Gregg, Kenny Mok, and Candice Yandem, for research assistance. The project’s website (http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/ReligionInCourt.html) will house a full replication archive, including the data and documentation necessary to reproduce all results. 2 See Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, Symposium: The unfolding revolution in the jurisprudence of the religion clauses (SCOTUSblog, Aug 6 2020), archived at https://perma.cc/43BS-KQAS; Richard Garnett, Symposium: Religious freedom and the Roberts court’s doctrinal clean-up (Scotusblog, Aug 7 2020), archived at https://perma.cc/7P5E-HP4Z; Kim Colby, Symposium: Free exercise, RFRA and the need","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45239804","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reference Re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act: How to Make Space for Some Certainty","authors":"Hoi L. Kong","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1425","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84307982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reading Regents and the Political Significance of Law","authors":"Cristina M. Rodríguez","doi":"10.1086/715475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715475","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43764852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Of Dominant Tides: Desgagnés Transport Inc. v. Wärtsilä Canada Inc. and the Growing Acceptance of Provincial Jurisdiction in Maritime Matters","authors":"S. Hanley, Sean Pierce","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1419","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76337689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics of Discrimination","authors":"D. Strauss","doi":"10.1086/715551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715551","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42021860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sidestepping the Charter, Again: Muting the Right to Habeas Corpus in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Chhina","authors":"Jared Will","doi":"10.60082/2563-8505.1415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1415","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81508816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
By design, the presidency is exceptional. Other branches are plural. Congress, a bicameral legislature, was always meant to have scores of members and now has over 500. Due to Congress exercising the option of creating lower federal courts, the federal judiciary is larger still, with judicial power fractured amongmore than a hundred federal courts and hundreds of judges. In contrast, one personmay command the military, steward foreign affairs, pardon federal offenses, direct the execution of federal law, and superintend the bureaucracy. The presidency is hardly all-powerful, for there are several express and
{"title":"“Not a Single Privilege Is Annexed to His Character”: Necessary and Proper Executive Privileges and Immunities","authors":"S. Prakash","doi":"10.1086/715234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/715234","url":null,"abstract":"By design, the presidency is exceptional. Other branches are plural. Congress, a bicameral legislature, was always meant to have scores of members and now has over 500. Due to Congress exercising the option of creating lower federal courts, the federal judiciary is larger still, with judicial power fractured amongmore than a hundred federal courts and hundreds of judges. In contrast, one personmay command the military, steward foreign affairs, pardon federal offenses, direct the execution of federal law, and superintend the bureaucracy. The presidency is hardly all-powerful, for there are several express and","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46819353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：