43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Undue Mental Hardship: A Case for Standardized Treatment of Mental Health Issues in Student Loan Discharge Proceedings
Get PDF
SITLA and How to Make It Pay: Two Proposals for Increasing the Profitability of Utah’s School and Institutional Trust Lands
Get PDFRace, Ethnicity, and Fair Housing Enforcement: A Regional Analysis
Get PDFThis article systematically compares how federal, state, and local civil rights agencies in the ten standard regions of the United States enforce fair housing law complaints filed by Blacks and Latinos. Specifically, it explores the extent to which regional outcomes at all three levels of government are decided favorably where, between 1989 and 2010, a racial or ethnic violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 is alleged. The results reveal significant variations in outcomes between these groups across the country. Most importantly, the probability of an outcome favorable to the complainant depends on the region in which the complaint is filed, the race or ethnicity of the complainant, and the racial or ethnic composition and the number of complaints filed per capita in the state in which a complaint originates. In general, while complaints filed by Latinos are more likely to receive a favorable outcome than those filed by Blacks, favorability rates for Latinos are more dependent on the region where the complaint is processed than they are for Blacks
Dignity, Deference, and Discrimination: An Analysis of Religious Freedom in America’s Prisons
Get PDFThe free exercise of religion often presents a complex reality in prison. Over the years, the standard of scrutiny for free exercise claims has not only been easily alterable but also unclear and inconsistent in its application. Recent legislation, such as RLUIPA and RFRA, has significantly improved the state of religious freedom in prisons. However, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on RLUIPA—Cutter v. Wilkinson and Holt v. Hobbs—have led to some confusion among lower courts regarding the level of deference that should be afforded to prison officials. Although Holt demonstrated a hard look approach to strict scrutiny, it did nothing to strike down or clarify Cutter’s deferential language. This is problematic because there is an inherent contradiction in applying strict scrutiny with deference. Although many courts follow a true strict scrutiny approach, in practice, remnants of a deferential approach remain among lower courts.
This Note argues that courts must adhere to strict scrutiny, not only in theory, but also in practice. In doing so, it first gives a brief, general overview of the history of religious freedom in the prison system, with particular focus on the efforts and struggles of religious minorities. Then it addresses the inconsistency between Cutter and Holt while comparing the due deference and hard look approaches. Finally, to provide some concrete examples of why this inconsistency matters, it examines two issues more indepth: First Amendment retaliation claims and equal treatment claims. It looks at several recent cases to further support the conclusion that strict scrutiny is not only necessary to protect religious minorities’ rights, but it is also both practical and feasible, even in the prison context
Clark Memorandum: Spring 2023
No full textFidei Defensor: Defending Faith to Enable Communities of Reconciliation Conscience, Peacebuilding, and Faith-Based Law Schools Elvis Was Right: The Unavoidable Intersection Between Personal Values and a Fulfilling Practice of Law The Future of the Establishment Clause: Implications of Kennedy v. Bremerton School Districthttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/clarkmemo_gallery/1069/thumbnail.jp
Clark Memorandum: Fall 2023
Get PDFFive Ways Law School Contributes to Life’s True Purpose Faith in Law: A Q&A with President Dallin H. Oaks Personal Religious Conviction and the Practice of Lawhttps://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/clarkmemorandum/1073/thumbnail.jp
The Impact of Religion and Religious Organizations
Get PDFLegal scholars often see religion as a mere private preference, choice, value, or identity with no more meaning or positive social impact than any other preference, choice, value, or identity. If anything, religion’s negative impacts are often highlighted. For example, a focus on the harms of religion often underlies contemporary legal debates about religious exemptions and tensions between religious rights and LGBTQ rights or reproductive rights. Conversely, scholars in other fields have documented religion’s distinctive pro-social features, proposing mechanisms by which religion has unique positive impacts on individuals, families, and society. While recognizing that, for its practitioners, religion has its own internal logic and rationales, this Article seeks to brings together broad empirical research and sociological and political theory on the social goods and pro-social values that religious belief, practice, and communities foster as well as to examine approaches to address the harms religion causes. The Article proposes religious freedom as a key mechanism to ensure maximal social benefit of religion. Religious freedom also underscores the value of the choice and experience of belief and unbelief