Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
MASKING GOD IN RESURRECTION SCHOOL V. HERTEL: ONE SCHOOL’S EFFORTS TO EXERCISE RELIGION DURING AN ONGOING PANDEMIC
Full text linkSARS-CoV-2, colloquially termed “COVID-19,” dramatically altered the world in which we live. But no one would have guessed the virus would spark a flurry of litigation under the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. Shortly after the virus began to spread, former President Donald Trump advised a twoweek plan with hopes to “flatten the curve” of COVID-19’s impact. The plan encouraged individuals to avoid gatherings with ten or more people, work and attend school from home, eat at home rather than in restaurants, and avoid discretionary travel and shopping, to name a few. But the two-week plan did not effectively thwart the spread of the virus, and more action was needed. Several states shut down their economies, schools, and churches to deter the spread. One of the most universally adopted approaches by the states included the implementation of universal mask mandates upon its citizens.
Indeed, the mitigation efforts, including mask mandates, that began under a two-week plan to prevent further spread of the virus lasted for over two years in some areas. Unsurprisingly, many citizens grew concerned over limitations of constitutional liberties, particularly the right to exercise one’s religion without government prohibition. As a result, a plethora of lawsuits regarding the Free Exercise Clause have been filed since the onset of the pandemic, and several have reached the Supreme Court. The Court has ruled in religion’s favor often. One author noted that the current Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, rules in favor of religion 81% of the time. For comparison, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Court ruled in favor of religion 58% of the time, several percentage points behind the current Court led by Chief Justice Roberts. Due to the expediency caused by a global pandemic, the Court is addressing hotly contested litigation under the Free Exercise Clause without delay. The current Court has issued most of its recent pro-religion decisions from the shadow docket in per curiam opinions. Further, the Court dramatically shifted its approach since the pandemic began. The Court has repeatedly granted great deference to religious exercise claims and strictly scrutinized government regulations. Indeed, the Supreme Court reminded us lately that “[t]he Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked, as well as overt.
MATTER OF WILL OF RATCLIFF AND THE NOT-SO-HARMLESS ERROR: A CALL TO CHANGE MISSISSIPPI’S APPROACH TO WILL FORMALITIES
Full text linkA will provides a mechanism to dispose of property at death. But costly litigation—or worse, a will’s invalidation—often thwart this purpose. The law of probate is state-specific, which leaves jurisdictions with the burden of ensuring that their laws promote rather than defeat the purpose of probate—to honor the testator’s intent. Mississippi attempts to recognize this purpose by requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for creating a will. This “better safe than sorry” approach errs on the side of invalidity with the hope that denying a non-compliant instrument for probate will prevent fraud and other wrongdoing.
Despite its intention, Mississippi’s approach does not conform to the traditional idea of strict compliance; instead, the approach falls somewhere between strict compliance and the Uniform Probate Code’s (“UPC”) harmless error rule. Courts evaluate each situation on a case-by-case basis which has left attorneys and individuals across the state uncertain as to what the probate process requires. This Article calls for Mississippi to formally adopt the UPC’s harmless error rule and change Mississippi’s approach to will formalities from the current state of uncertainty to a more uniform standard
