46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid and Customary Use: Protecting the Public\u27s Right to Recreate on Dry Sand Beaches
Get PDFHealthy Rivers are Critical for Colorado\u27s Water Resources Resilience: How Colorado Water Law Needs to Evolve to Protect Our Natural Stream Systems
Get PDFOver the past 200 years, the large majority of Colorado\u27s rivers have been altered to make way for development, agriculture, or transportation, or to deliver water to users more efficiently. Rivers have been buried by mining debris or concrete, channelized, levied, wholly diverted, riparian vegetation lost by grazing or land use practices, and thousands of miles of streams have become incised, disconnected from their foodplains. Numerous scientific studies over the past twenty years have documented why degraded rivers are problematic and why healthy functioning river systems connected to their foodplains provide numerous critical services beyond water delivery, including increased protection for Colorado communities through reduced risk of impacts from drought, wildfires and foods, improved water quality by filtering sediments and other pollutants, increased habitat in streams and riparian areas, and increased resiliency for the State\u27s water resources. Fortunately, many case studies are also showing how we can restore our degraded streams to regain these incredible benefits
Separation of Church and Law: The Ministerial Exception in Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish
Get PDFReligious freedom is increasingly invoked to defeat liability for behavior that has long been regulated under accepted, neutral law, an argument to which many courts and judges appear receptive. One such area of law seeing this activity is the ministerial exception-a judicial principle recognized under the First Amendment. The ministerial exception guarantees religious organizations\u27 discretion in how they select their ministers, or religious employees dedicated to the organization\u27s religious mission. However, current law lacks clarity regarding the application of the exception to an organization\u27s treatment of its ministers. Recently, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, chose to categorically expand the application of the ministerial exception to workplace harassment claims; in essence, ruling that ministers could expect little protection from the law against harassment in the workplace. This Comment evaluates the Seventh Circuit\u27s categorical expansion of the ministerial exception to workplace harassment claims and compares it to the balancing approach the court initially adopted, which would evaluate case-by-case whether a workplace harassment claim implicated too many protected religious concerns to proceed. This Comment argues that the balancing approach better conforms to the First Amendment\u27s scope of religious protections. First, it allows suits unconcerned with any significant religious issues to proceed. Second, it avoids the risk of excessive entanglement or protracted scrutiny of religious practice. Finally, this Comment concludes that the categorical expansion of the ministerial exception resembles recent opinions which have endorsed interpretations of the First Amendment that would allow actors to frustrate constitutionally legitimate regulations of commercial behavior, suggesting a new form of Lochner-era jurisprudence may be on the move
