This Casenote examines Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, in which the Supreme Court of the United States extended unemployment benefits to a claimant who had voluntarily terminated his employment for religious reasons. The author discusses the application of the first amendment religion clauses to cases of this nature, and suggests that the Supreme Court did not properly balance the claimant\u27s right to the free exercise of his religion against the state\u27s interest in maintaining its unemployment compensation system. The author concludes that the Court\u27s decision increases the conflict between the establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendmen
Title VII protects against religious discrimination in the work place.\u27 The Free Exercise Clause ...
The Supreme Court has lost sight of individual religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Luthe...
Much has been written about the protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause when government reg...
This Casenote examines Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, in which ...
When the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that the Free Exercise Clause does not p...
For nearly forty years, the courts have barred a variety of lawsuits by clergy against their religio...
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting...
The Supreme Court has been extremely puzzled about how to treat the distribution of public benefits ...
Courts in the United States have long recognized that they cannot intrude into religious organizatio...
On January 11, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Scho...
The Supreme Court wrongly decided Employment Division v. Smith. Without briefing or argument over th...
A hallmark of religion clause scholarship is the complaint that the doctrine is a hopeless muddle. H...
This article reports on the thick layers of law applicable to claims of religious exception to publi...
The principle that the government must not only refrain from providing special preference to a parti...
In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Cou...
Title VII protects against religious discrimination in the work place.\u27 The Free Exercise Clause ...
The Supreme Court has lost sight of individual religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Luthe...
Much has been written about the protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause when government reg...
This Casenote examines Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, in which ...
When the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that the Free Exercise Clause does not p...
For nearly forty years, the courts have barred a variety of lawsuits by clergy against their religio...
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting...
The Supreme Court has been extremely puzzled about how to treat the distribution of public benefits ...
Courts in the United States have long recognized that they cannot intrude into religious organizatio...
On January 11, 2012 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Scho...
The Supreme Court wrongly decided Employment Division v. Smith. Without briefing or argument over th...
A hallmark of religion clause scholarship is the complaint that the doctrine is a hopeless muddle. H...
This article reports on the thick layers of law applicable to claims of religious exception to publi...
The principle that the government must not only refrain from providing special preference to a parti...
In Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, the United States Supreme Cou...
Title VII protects against religious discrimination in the work place.\u27 The Free Exercise Clause ...
The Supreme Court has lost sight of individual religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Luthe...
Much has been written about the protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause when government reg...