The Religion Law Quiz Podcast

Religion Law Quiz #47 (National Religious Freedom Day)

What is so unique about January 16, 2023?  Here’s a clue.  What do we celebrate on January 15 and January 16, 2024? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
January 16, 2023 was both Marth Luther King Jr. Day and National Religious Freedom Day. 
 
In 2024, we celebrate the back-to-back special days of January 15 (Martin Luther King Jr. Day) and January 16 (National Religious Freedom Day).  Dr. King, a Baptist minister, and others exercised their freedoms of religion, speech and assembly to effectuate seismically important changes in this country.  Those First Amendment rights are deeply intertwined.  As individuals we do more than just believe.  We act on our beliefs.  We speak about our beliefs.  We assemble with other like-minded people in connection with those beliefs.  Exercising these rights together allows individuals, such as Dr. King, to do tremendous good for society.  As we honor the great accomplishments of the past let us also look forward to the future knowing that, there are others yet to come who, exercising their First Amendments rights, will also be the means of doing much good for many individuals and society.
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #15 (Hierarchical and Congregational Churches)

There are a lot of different denominations in the United States.  Some are considered to be "hierarchical" churches while others are considered to be "congregational" churches.  The distinction is actually quite important when it comes to issues regarding church property.  What is the difference between a "hierarchical" church and a "congregational" church?
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
A hierarchical church is one which is organized with other churches with similar doctrine which have a common ruling body or ecclesiastical head.  Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952).  In contrast, congregational churches are locally governed by the majority.  Congregational churches “are free to adopt constitutions, by-laws, and internal rules which will alter or regulate their proceedings, but even these must be enacted by majority vote. And in the absence of such voluntarily-adopted rules, each such congregation functions as a pure democracy.”  Kennedy v. Gray, 248 Kan. 486, 494, 807 P.2d 670, 676 (Kan. 1991) (citation omitted).
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

A Word of Encouragement to You

Today's episode is a word of encouragement, my personal pep talk to you.  Learning about religious freedom law is a bit like learning to swim.  At first you may be getting in the water and feel like you are just floundering.  But with time, you learn the strokes and begin to be able to navigate different situations.  

Religion Law Quiz #14

True or False: If a law is neutral and generally applicable without regard to religion but it has the effect of burdening the free exercise of religion then the Supreme Court is likely to overturn such a law as violating the First Amendment?
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Answer: False.  Consider what the Supreme Court had to say about this in 2017.  It said:
 
In recent years, when this Court has rejected free exercise challenges, the laws in question have been neutral and generally applicable without regard to religion. We have been careful to distinguish such laws from those that single out the religious for disfavored treatment.
 
For example, in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988), we held that the Free Exercise Clause did not prohibit the Government from timber harvesting or road construction on a particular tract of federal land, even though the Government’s action would obstruct the religious practice of several Native American Tribes that held certain sites on the tract to be sacred. Accepting that “[t]he building of a road or the harvesting of timber ... would interfere significantly with private persons’ ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their own religious beliefs,” we nonetheless found no free exercise violation, because the affected individuals were not being “coerced by the Government’s action into violating their religious beliefs.”  Id., at 449, 108 S.Ct. 1319. The Court specifically noted, however, that the Government action did not “penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.” Ibid.
 
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2020 (2017).

Religion Law Quiz #13

True or False: A law may regulate or outlaw conduct because it is religiously motivated so long as the law is facially neutral. 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
Answer: False.  Consider the following 2017 quote from the United States Supreme Court which addressed this issue. 
 
Finally, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, we struck down three facially neutral city ordinances that outlawed certain forms of animal slaughter. Members of the Santeria religion challenged the ordinances under the Free Exercise Clause, alleging that despite their facial neutrality, the ordinances had a discriminatory purpose easy to ferret out: prohibiting sacrificial rituals integral to Santeria but distasteful to local residents. We agreed. Before explaining why the challenged ordinances were not, in fact, neutral or generally applicable, the Court recounted the fundamentals of our free exercise jurisprudence. A law, we said, may not discriminate against “some or all religious beliefs.”     508 U.S., at 532, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Nor may a law regulate or outlaw conduct because it is religiously motivated. And, citing McDaniel and Smith, we restated the now-familiar refrain: The Free Exercise Clause protects against laws that “ ‘impose[ ] special disabilities on the basis of ... Religious status.’ ”     508 U.S., at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (quoting Smith, 494 U.S., at 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595); see also Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 828, 120 S.Ct. 2530, 147 L.Ed.2d 660 (2000) (plurality opinion) (noting “our decisions that have prohibited governments from discriminating in the distribution of public benefits based upon religious status or sincerity” (citing Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 102 S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981))).
 
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2021 (2017).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #12

RLUIPA questions are always challenging because RLUIPA is relatively less known.  Let’s see how you do on this one.  Religion Law Quiz #8 pointed out that in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) the Supreme Court ruled RFRA was in excess of the powers allotted to Congress under that provision.  Congress, of course, did not like that holding so it enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA).  How did (a) Congress get around the holding in City of Boerne to make RLUIPA applicable to the States and (b) what did RLUIPA generally provide?
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fortunately for all of us, the Supreme Court answered this question in Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 357-58 (2015) wherein it stated:
 
Congress responded to City of Boerne by enacting RLUIPA, which applies to the States and their subdivisions and invokes congressional authority under the Spending and Commerce Clauses. See   § 2000cc–1(b). RLUIPA concerns two areas of government activity: Section 2 governs land-use regulation, § 2000cc; and Section 3—…governs religious exercise by institutionalized persons, § 2000cc–1. Section 3 mirrors RFRA and provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”     § 2000cc–1(a).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #11

True or False:  The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause has an equal protection component to it. 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
Answer: True.  Here's how the Supreme Court answered that question in 2017. 
 
The Free Exercise Clause “protect[s] religious observers against unequal treatment” and subjects to the strictest scrutiny laws that target the religious for “special disabilities” based on their “religious status.”  Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 542, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying that basic principle, this Court has repeatedly confirmed that denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by a state interest “of the highest order.”     McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 628, 98 S.Ct. 1322, 55 L.Ed.2d 593 (1978) (plurality opinion) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)).
 
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S.Ct. 2012, 2019 (2017).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #10

Today we talk about a key First Amendment/Religious Freedom related case that the Supreme Court heard during its 2022-23 term.  Let's see how you do.  
 
Question: What religious freedom case has the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari for the 2022-23 term, what Circuit does the underlying case come from and what is the issue that the Supreme Court has asked to be addressed? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
  
The case is 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis (Supreme Court Case No. 21-476).  It is an appeal from the Tenth Circuit.  Here is the Supreme Court’s Feb. 22, 2022 docket entry identifying the issue presented: Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
 
The full Supreme Court docket for this case can be found at:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-476.html
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #9

Today's Quiz talks about whether the Government can silence a religious viewpoint to prevent an Establishment Clause issue.  Let's see how you do.
 
Today’s Religion Law Quiz is a simple “Yes” or “No” question.  Let’s see how you do. 
 
Yes or No:  In an effort to encourage diverse express the government has created a forum for debate.  Many viewpoints are expressed in the forum (e.g., pro-police; anti-police; Pride celebration; Support of Ukraine; etc.).  However, one of the participants begins articulating various Christian beliefs.  Concerned about that, the government official in charge of monitoring the forum excludes the Christian speaker to make sure that there is not Establishment Clause violation.  Was the government official correct in the actions taken? 
 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: No.  “When the government encourages diverse express—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint.” Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 142 S.Ct. 1583, 1587 (2022) (holding that the City of Boston’s refusal allowing a group to fly a “Christian flag” on a flag pole which was used for the expression of many different groups violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because the decision constituted impermissible discrimination based on a religious viewpoint.) 
 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #8

Today we talk about RFRA as applied to the States.  Let's see how you do.  
 
In Religion Law Quiz #7 we learned that RFRA is not applicable to the states because of the Supreme Court's ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997).  Following that ruling, some (but not all) states have adopted their own state-law versions of RFRA.  Do you know whether Kansas and Missouri have adopted a RFRA-like statute and, if so, where it is codified? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: Missouri (2003) and Kansas (2013) have adopted their own versions of RFRA.  Here are the links to the respective state statutes:
 
Missouri
1.302
Religious freedom restoration act. (8/28/2003)
 
1.307
Applicability of religious freedom restoration act — limitations — relevant ... (8/28/2003)
 
 
From <https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=1>
 
Kansas
60-5301 - Citation of act.
60-5302 - Definitions.
60-5303 - Exercise of religion; burden of proof; remedies.
60-5304 - Exercise of religion; compelling governmental interest.
60-5305 - Construction of act.
60-5311 - Exercise of religion by religious student associations; definitions.
60-5312 - Same; prohibition on certain actions by postsecondary educational institutions.
60-5313 - Same; cause of action.
60-5320 - Public speech protection act.
60-5321 - Traditional tribal regalia and objects of cultural significance, wearing of.
60-5322 - Adoption protection act.
 
From <http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021_22/statute/060_000_0000_chapter/060_053_0000_article/>
 Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.