Should religious non-profits have different tax rules?

Catholic Charities in Wisconsin are arguing against the state's refusal to allow it to be exempt from paying taxes under the mandatory unemployment compensation system. Catholic Charities are attempting to opt out of the state system and trying to use the church-based system instead which is less costly. The state is not allowing the exemption by stating Catholic Charities is just like any other non-profit organization and should not be treated differently. For this reason, the state argues that they should be participating in the state unemployment tax system like normal.

The main issue at hand is whether or not the state of Wisconsin’s refusal to grant Catholic Charities an exemption from paying into the state unemployment system violates the rights of the organization under the First Amendment.

The argument held by Catholic Charities is that its mission is religious and for this reason should be able to be entitled to the tax exemption they seek. However, the court argues the opposite and holds the position that despite being affiliated with religion, they do not operate under the same circumstance as a church and for this reason should not be allowed the tax exemption.

I would agree with the court in this case because an organization like Catholic Charities is not a church and should not attempt to operate like one in order to receive a tax exemption. In addition to this, they have for a long time paid the regular tax and have not attempted to receive an exemption. If the tax exemption were allowed for the Catholic Charities this would also establish a precedent that many other kinds of non-profit organizations would be eligible to receive tax exemptions based on their religious standpoints. 

The reasoning in this case reflects a difficult intersection between religious freedom and the government's ability to impose taxes on organizations. While it is very possible that the Catholic Charities does have a religious purpose and is aiming to spread the gospel, it could have consequences in establishing this precedent in future cases for organizations like Catholic Charities. 

The issue regarding the First Amendment in this case would be the Establishment Clause. The main concern for the state of Wisconsin is maintaining a separation between church and state. For this reason, the state of Wisconsin is defending its argument that Catholic Charities should not be exempt from the tax system simply because it has religious ties because if it were to be exempt, the precedent that would be established as a result could cause broader implications that would result in difficulty maintaining the separation of church and state.

In my opinion, the state of Wisconsin is making the right decision in denying the tax exemption from the Catholic Charities for the same reason. By preventing a non-profit from establishing itself as essentially a church in the tax laws, the state is able to avoid eliminating its separation between church and state.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5345839/supreme-court-catholic-charities

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5332378/catholic-charities-supreme-court-wisconsin

Holy Days and Court Dates: Drawing the Line on Last-Minute Religious Accommodations

In the case of Dimeo v. Gross, the Pennsylvania Superior Court kept a lower court's decision to deny the request for a trial delay due to Yom Kippur's observance. The defendant requested to push the trial date back one day so that he could observe the Jewish holy day without having to miss his trial day. However, the court ruled that the request was not submitted in a timely manner, as the trial date had been known for about a year. The court argued that a simple check of the date and the calendar would have alerted the defendant of the current conflict well enough in advance to request an accommodation. The defendant only petitioned for a continuance a few days before the trial. This allowed the court to determine that there was insufficient evidence to justify a disruption of the scheduled trial proceedings, including the arrangements made for key and expert witnesses. 

The key issue is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees individuals the right to practice their religion freely. The defendant argues that being forced to choose between full participation in his trial and religious observance breached his religious freedom. However, the court brought up the issue of procedural diligence. The ruling emphasized that while the courts may grant continuances due to religious reasons, they require timely requests and cannot be asked for last minute without compelling justification. 

The decision also touches on the broader theme of religious accommodations within the legal system. The government and the judiciary systems have had long battles on how to balance religious freedom with administrative efficiency and keeping fairness between all parties involved. Courts have often granted religious accommodations, but they have done so within reasonable limits, ensuring that this arrangement does not burden the legal process or the rights of others involved in the litigation.  

The tension between religious accommodation and procedural fairness is not a new concept to constitutional law. Some foundational cases like Sherbert v Verner (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seventh-day Adventist who was denied unemployment benefits after refusing to work on Saturdays due to her Sabbath. The Court decided that government actions that substantially burden religious practices must be justified due to compelling state interest and must be tailored to achieve the interest at hand. The “Sherbert Test” favored individuals looking for religious exemptions. Although, later cases like Employment Division v. Smith (1990) shifted the standard. It held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not require religious exemptions. 

In my opinion, the courts were correct in denying the religious request for continuance in this case. This is not because religious freedom is not important but because the legal system depends on structure, diligence, and fairness to all parties involved. The Free Exercise Clause does protect the defendant's right to religious observance, however, that protection does not include last-minute requests that compromise the integrity of the judiciary system and proceedings.  

The trial date for the Dimeo v. Gross case was set 18 months in advance. It is not unreasonable to presume that the parties involved will review the important dates and identify any future conflicts. The responsibility to request an accommodation is expected to be with the party who seeks it. If Dr. Gross had submitted the continuance request months in advance, then the court would have reasonably accepted the accommodation because it would not have jeopardized the schedule or imposed a burden on the others.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling does reinforce the religious accommodations when available. This decision aligns with the logic from the Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where the Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not require religious exemptions. The subject is not about hostility toward religion, but it was about preserving fairness and efficiency in judicial administration. 

This ruling also protects the rights of the opposing parties, the plaintiffs, who had scheduled expert witnesses to come in. Granting a continuance so late could cause delays, increase expenses, or create a negative opinion about the plaintiff’s case. The justice system must make sure that one’s religious right does not cause an unfair burden and cost to another’s right to a timely trial. 

Religious freedom should be protected without being exploited as a loophole. If the court ruled differently, it would have been a troubling precedent set that encouraged parties to delay requests for religious accommodations. This could be a slippery slope to manipulate the system for their own advantage. 

The Dimeo v. Gross case emphasizes the complex balance between religious freedom and judicial efficiency. While the Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion, this right does not override procedural rules designed to ensure orderly legal proceedings. The Court’s decision was correct and affirms that religious accommodation in legal settings must be pursued with responsibility and respect for everyone affected by the rulings.

Ultimately, this ruling emphasized the importance that rights must be exercised within the framework of the shared responsibility. Accommodating religion is not about granting special or specific privileges, it is about creating an environment for beliefs without undermining justice. Through this specific court decision, this court preserved both the rule of law and religious liberty. 

Sources: 

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/04/trial-courts-refusal-to-delay-civil.html

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A24018-24m%20-%20106325082306004095.pdf?cb=1

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/526

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/judge-hammer-star-david-national-jewish-1443082742

Does Religion in Education Matter?

    Under California law, parents are allowed to create free charter schools in local school districts to allow parents to have a personal impact on their children’s education. In this program, students are allowed to do an independent study which allows parents to homeschool their children instead of normal classroom based learning. Through this program, families receive a state account with funding for school supplies and other school-related expenses. Parents get to choose what curriculum their children follow, while the charter schools monitor attendance records and credits. One main stipulation with this way of learning is that parents cannot use the state’s funding to purchase religious curricula, nor can they purchase non-religious curricula from a religious publisher. The charter schools also do not accept credit from work that is related to religion in any way. This case stems from that stipulation. 

 In October of 2023, a group of parents sued California school officials under the claim of religious discrimination. The First Liberty Institute, along with King & Spalding LLP are spearheading the lawsuit. The plaintiffs have claimed that the charter schools have restricted their access to funds, rejected a student's credit, and in one case, expelled a family from the charter school. The plaintiffs argue that The U.S. Department of Education has historically taken the stance that schools cannot deny a student credit based on their work coming from a religious viewpoint. In April of 2024, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, but the attorneys are appealing this decision.

The question at hand is: does disqualifying a student from state funded schooling based on the fact that they are using religious materials in their education violate the free exercise clause? 

I would argue that this does violate the free exercise clause. Using evidence from Carson v. Makin (2021), a similar case where students were denied financial aid due to them choosing to go to a religious school, we see that the court decided it violated the free exercise clause to deny families “otherwise available scholarship funds at religious schools.” The state was not allowed to make decisions on scholarships to some schools and not other schools based on religion. 

In the case of the California charter schools, some students are receiving credit and funding for their education while others are not based on religious learning. For the government to take a neutral stance on the subject, students should all be allowed to learn regardless of whether they want a religious curriculum or not. The government should neither be incentivizing religion, nor incentivizing a child to be non-religious. One issue with this case however, is that it could lead to a slippery slope where all religious schools will try to fight to have tuition subsidized by the government, but in this case, the schools are meant to have families choose their own curriculum, so therefore they should allow religious ones.

Sources:

https://fox40.com/news/local-news/sacramento/parents-sue-california-schools-for-alleged-religious-discrimination/

https://firstliberty.org/cases/california-charter-schools/#simple1

https://www.foxnews.com/us/christian-homeschooling-parents-sue-california-religious-discrimination-glaring-exception

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088

Can The Court Decide Who Religious Establishments Can Hire or Fire?

 Kuilema v. Calvin University is a case that began in April of 2023 and is currently awaiting trial with the deciding court, the Michigan Court of Appeals. Calvin University is a private religious institution affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church. Faculty of Calvin University are expected to follow the Christian Reformed Church's standards and implement teachings of good faith into their curriculum. Calvin University makes this commitment extremely clear to faculty, outlining what is expected of them and what is or will not be tolerated. This agreement between Calvin University and its staff is put in place to ensure the university’s religious mission stays strong. 

In 2021, a professor at the university officiated a wedding for a same-sex marriage. Due to this act directly going against the university’s guidelines of what is expected of their staff and for contradicting the Christian Reformed Church’s beliefs, Calvin University raised concerns about the professor’s employment. After trying to settle the issue with the professor but failing to resolve any disagreements, the university did not renew the professor's contract. In response to terminating his employment, the professor sued the university under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. In doing so, the professor claimed that the university discriminated against him due to his involvement in an act, officiating a same-sex marriage, and was liable for firing him due to religious beliefs. 

The university’s defense is rooted in the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Calvin University argues that not allowing the university to decide who can or cannot work at their institution based upon how their employees uphold their core beliefs inhibits their ability to freely exercise their religion. Given that the university has made it abundantly clear that they do not support same-sex marriage as it contradicts its religious beliefs, the professor not only went against the beliefs of the university, but the agreement made between employees and Calvin University. 

When it comes to matters of faith, the Court has historically sided with religious institutions. The Court has emphasized the importance of the constitutional wall between church and state, yet complete separation is unworkable in practice. The Court has time and time again had to balance the challenge of accommodating religious practices and institutions, while simultaneously avoiding government entanglement. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru is a case that went to the Supreme Court in 2019. This case dealt with the issue of a teacher suing Our Lady of Guadalupe School after being fired for poor performance and not upholding religious beliefs that were rooted in the school's mission. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the school arguing that in determining who can and cannot work at religious institutions the government is infringing upon the institution's autonomy. For religious groups, whether that be religious schools, churches, etc. to have religious freedom, they must be able to freely exercise their religious beliefs without excessive interference from the government. In getting involved in decisions of who can secure their employment at a religious institution despite not upholding the establishment's religious mission and beliefs, there would be excessive government entanglement. This ruling reinforced that religious institutions have constitutional protection to make employment decisions about employees with religious duties.

This case tests the ministerial exception, a legal doctrine derived from the First Amendment that shields religious institutions from government interference in employment decisions involving employees who have religious responsibilities. The purpose of terminating the professor's employment was rooted in upholding the university’s sincere religious beliefs. The professor made a pledge to uphold the university's strong religious beliefs upon deciding to work at the establishment, thus making them responsible for abiding by those rules. By stepping outside of what the university believes to be acceptable for its employees, the professor risked his employment which the university is at liberty to terminate.

This case highlights the ongoing tension between LGBTQ+ inclusion and religious spaces. While this issue is a significant societal concern, it’s important to consider that the university’s autonomy and its ability to uphold its religious mission could be compromised if the court does not rule in its favor. By allowing religious institutions the freedom to hire and fire individuals based on their beliefs, the government is maintaining the essential and constitutional separation between church and state. If the Court were to side with Kuilema, it would set a dangerous precedent, not only expanding government involvement in religious decision-making, but also challenging the many past rulings that have upheld the rights of religious institutions. I think that this case has serious implications that could infringe upon the university’s First Amendment rights protected by the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I wonder what you all think. Do you think that Calvin University’s right to freely exercise its religion is being violated?

https://www.cccu.org/magazine/religious-freedom-higher-education/

https://becketfund.org/case/our-lady-of-guadalupe-school/

https://becketfund.org/case/kuilema-v-calvin-university/

Should Students be Allowed to Distribute Bibles During the School Day?

    The high school I attended, Mechanicsburg Area Senior High (MASH), made headlines on Fox News  when a Christian student group filed a lawsuit claiming a school policy that prohibited students from distributing Bibles during lunch was unconstitutional. 

        In November, around the time of Thanksgiving, students from the Christians in Action Club requested permission to sit at a table during lunch, have a poster for fellow students to sign and write something they were thankful for, and to offer Bibles to those approaching the table. MASD principal, David Harris, then informed the students by email that they could set up the table and poster, but could not distribute the Bible during the school day. Not only did Principal Harris deny them the ability to hand Bibles out during the school day, but he also required them to submit a formal request before distributing them on school property outside of the school day. If they were to be granted access, they could distribute religious text on public sidewalks outside of the school 30 minutes before or after class. He made it clear that there was not a ban on Bibles, but there was a ban on offering Bibles to classmates during school hours. The school also banned any student religious speech that claimed the "supremacy" of a particular religion. 

    Frustrated with the school's policies, the students reached out to Independence Law Center (ILC) in Harrisburg, PA for help. The ILC then contacted the School Board and requested they alter the language of both policies because it inhibited the students' constitutional right to free speech and freely exercise their religion. The School Board ignored the responses and informally revoked the "club status" for the student group. A lawsuit was subsequently filed.

    The lawsuit claimed the policy restricted the students rights on two major levels. First, the school district allegedly denied official recognition to the Christians in Action Club while granting recognition to other student clubs. This denial limited the club’s ability to meet on school premises, promote activities, and access resources available to other clubs. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by suppressing religious expression. They claimed that denying them the ability to distribute Bibles and outlawing evangelical religious speech was not based on neutral criteria but rather on the religious nature of the club, treating them differently from secular student organizations. 

    The school argued, citing the Establishment Clause, that they have an obligation to prohibit religious speech and the distribution of religious material during the "school day". School is a place for education, not religious indoctrination. While the Christians in Action Club were free to meet and distribute Bibles to their members after school hours, it's in the schools best interest to keep evangelizing Christianity out of the lunchroom.

   The students and their legal team present a very good argument. The policies enforced by the school board are not neutral because they directly restrict religious speech, while giving secular clubs priority during lunch. While the School Board does have a compelling interest in keeping religious worship and teachings out of school, I don't believe this should be applied to student clubs wanting to distribute Bibles during non-instructional hours. This student club does not receive funding from the state, unlike teachers or educational curriculum that are paid for using government money (in reference to cases like Engel v. Vitale (1962)). Therefore the use of the Establishment Clause in this instance seems invalid. 

    There are a number of Supreme Court cases that could set a precedent for a decision in favor of the students in this case. First is Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), where the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Virginia violated the First Amendment by denying funding to a Christian student publication while providing funds to secular student groups. The ruling emphasized that the government (or a public school) cannot discriminate against religious speech based on viewpoint in a public forum, which would validate the student's claim that evangelical speech in public schools are protected under the First Amendment. Another applicable Supreme Court Case is Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001). Here the Court held that a public school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by preventing a religious club from using school facilities after hours while allowing secular groups to meet. The ruling affirmed that religious groups must receive the same access to public school spaces as non-religious groups. Since secular clubs had access to the lunchroom and were allowed to distribute non-religious material, this would indicate the Christians in Action Club were denied equal access.

    With a decision in favor of the students, I recognize that there could be a slippery slope effect. If we let students evangelize during the school day (though it may be a non-instructional time), schools could resemble more of a church than a place of education during these hours. However, judging this case at face value, the policies seem to violate the Free Exercise Clause. What do you think?

Sources:

Independence Law Center. (n.d.). Christians in Action case summary. Retrieved from https://independencelaw.org/christiansinaction/

Oyez. (n.d.). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-2036

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (94-329), 515 U.S. 753 (1995). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-329.ZS.html

Oyez. (n.d.). Engel v. Vitale. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468

Brown, L. (2024, March 15). High school’s Bible ban is unconstitutional, students claim. Fox News. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/high-schools-bible-ban-is-unconstitutional-students-claim

Independence Law Center. (2019). Complaint against MASD by Christians In Action Club. Retrieved from https://independencelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-COMPLAINT-against-MASD-by-Christians-In-Action-Club.pdf

Question of Neutrality in Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors

 Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors is a case centered around George Ricks, a 59 year old construction worker and father of four from Idaho. Ricks wanted to register as an independent contractor but faced obstacles due to his religious convictions. Idaho law makes it a misdemeanor to work as a contractor without registering with the state, and registration requires providing a Social Security number. However, Ricks’ religious convictions restrict him from providing his Social Security number because of biblical interpretations that prohibit “a governmental universal identification system”. 

Ricks was willing to provide alternate forms of identification, such as his birth certificate, but his registration was nonetheless denied by the Idaho Board of Contractors. The Board's position was motivated by federal funding incentives tied to Social Security number collection. The denial of Ricks’ registration prevented him from providing for his family, which puts him in a place where he has to choose between financial security and religious convictions. 

The primary constitutional question is whether administrative boards must provide accommodations for registration due to religious convictions. This directly engages with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and raises fundamental questions about the balance between neutrality and religious liberty protections. I argue that they must accommodate Rick and should rule in his favor since accommodating him would not seem to undermine governmental objectives and would promote religious freedom. 

This case brings into question whether religious accommodations should be made to neutral generally applicable laws under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) established that the government does not have to accommodate religion when a law is neutral and generally applicable. Native Americans were not allowed an exemption for drug use despite the drugs being ingested in a religious practice. In Rick’s case, I believe the law is neutral in that it applies to everyone. However, the law has disparate impacts on those with minority religious beliefs and the law poses an indirect burden on Ricks’ religious freedom. Therefore, I would argue against the precedent set in Employment Division v. Smith. I argue that the law is facial neutrality, yet has disparate impacts on minority religious beliefs and it is thus unconstitutional. 

This case presents an opportunity to recognize that formal neutrality alone can be insufficient for protecting religious liberty when laws disproportionately burden minority religious practices. Before Smith, Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) allowed for religious exemptions when an Amish family was allowed religious exemptions from Wiscon’s compulsory school attendance laws. Also in Sherbert v. Verner (1963),  a seventh day adventist was allowed unemployment based on their religious convictions to not work on Saturdays. Sherbert parallels Ricks’s case in that there is a choice between religious beliefs and financial opportunities that burdens religious freedom. In my opinion, accommodations for religious beliefs extend government neutrality to fully allow for religious freedom. 

The importance of this issue extends beyond Ricks' individual circumstances. When government regulations force people to choose between following their faith and earning a living, fundamental questions about religious liberty arise. This is especially concerning when, as in Ricks' case, the government could easily accommodate religious objections by accepting alternative identification or obtaining the information through other means. The state's refusal to consider reasonable alternatives creates an unnecessary burden based on religious beliefs, and religious minorities should not face economic exclusion when accommodations impose minimal administrative burden. 

By requiring reasonable accommodations, courts can ensure the protection of religious minorities who face obstacles freely exercising their religious convictions. Furthermore, not accommodating on the basis of religion could set a dangerous precedent that puts convenience over constitutional rights in my opinion. I think this is especially important in Rick’s case because the burden is severe. He is no longer able to practice his profession which is how he makes a living for himself and his family. 

However, I can see the opposite side, that the law is generally applicable and any burdens are incidental and indirect. Since the law is not specifically targeting religion and thus facially neutral, can it be viewed as constitutional despite the indirect burden? Also, there could be a slippery slope in this instance. If the board accommodates Rick, what else could people leave out on registrations due to religious convictions?  What do you think?

Sources:

https://casetext.com/case/ricks-v-state-132 ?

https://www.deseret.com/2019/8/30/20837553/religious-belief-freedom-supreme-court-constitution-bible/ 

https://becketfund.org/case/ricks-v-idaho-board-contractors/

Holy Exemption or Health Risk? The Legal Battle Over College Vaccine Mandates

In 2021, Western Michigan University (WMU) introduced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring all student-athletes to be vaccinated to participate in sports. Several student-athletes opposed the requirement for religious reasons and requested exemptions. They argued that getting the vaccine conflicted with their faith. WMU denied all religious exemption requests but allowed medical and other non-religious exemptions. As a result, the affected athletes sued, arguing that the policy violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. Dahl v. The Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University raised important legal questions about whether public universities can enforce vaccine mandates in a way that treats religious beliefs differently from other exemptions.

The main issue in this case is whether Western Michigan University (WMU) violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by allowing medical exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate but denying religious exemptions. This clause protects people from government actions that unfairly target or burden religious beliefs. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) helps explain this issue. In Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that if a law is neutral and applies equally to everyone, meaning it does not specifically target religion, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, even if the law happens to burden religious practices indirectly. Applying this to WMU’s vaccine mandate, the key question is whether the university’s policy is neutral. WMU allowed medical exemptions but denied religious ones, raising concerns that the policy may not be applied equally. This could be seen as discriminatory if the university reviewed medical exemption requests individually but automatically rejected religious exemptions. The Smith ruling suggests that WMU could potentially defend its vaccine mandate by arguing that it is a neutral, generally applicable rule. The case ultimately asks whether WMU’s policy meets the standard of being neutral or if it unfairly singles out religious exemptions.

This case has broader implications that go beyond just Western Michigan University. It brings attention to the ongoing tension between the government’s role in protecting public health and individuals’ right to practice their religion freely, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The case raises important questions about whether public institutions can deny religious exemptions to health policies like the COVID-19 vaccine mandate while allowing medical exemptions. This could set a dangerous precedent for limiting religious freedoms under the mask that it is for public safety. If the court sides with WMU, it would give more power to institutions to enforce health policies. However, if the student-athletes win, it could limit how institutions can enforce vaccine requirements in the future. This could potentially lead to legal challenges for other policies that deny religious exemptions. This would affect vaccine mandates and other public health policies, such as mask mandates or future health regulations. 

There are two sides to this case, one focused on religious freedom and the other on public health. From a pro-religious freedom view, WMU’s policy appears biased because it allowed medical exemptions but denied religious ones. This lack of neutrality could be seen as unfair treatment of religious beliefs. Since WMU allows medical exemptions but denies religious ones, this could be considered unconstitutional discrimination against religious freedom. On the other hand, from a pro-public health view, universities should have the authority to impose reasonable health mandates. This is for the “common good” of the students and staff to protect their health. Public health is a priority, and universities must ensure their campus is safe from outbreaks. Granting too many religious exemptions could weaken the effectiveness of vaccine policies and potentially lead to more infections, making it harder to control the spread of COVID-19 on campus. Medical exemptions are also different because they are based on a person's physical inability to get the vaccine due to health problems. Religious exemptions are personal and can not be proven sincere, which creates a dangerous slippery slope that could lead to a situation where people might claim religious beliefs as a way to avoid the vaccine. This creates a challenge in enforcing vaccine mandates fairly.

In regard to the constitutional issue, I agree with the university's stance that religious exemptions should not be granted in this case because public health is more important for the common good. While the First Amendment protects individuals' right to religious freedom, in situations like a public health crisis, protecting the health and safety of the community should take precedence. The vaccine mandate is not about targeting religious beliefs but about ensuring the well-being of everyone on campus. Regarding public health, specific measures like vaccine mandates are necessary to protect the greater good, even if they may indirectly burden individual freedoms in particular situations.

Sources:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/21-2945/21-2945-2021-10-07.html

https://www.greatlakesjc.org/cases/dahl_v_wmu/ 

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/07/victory-for-wmu-student-athletes-with-religious-objections-to-vaccination/

A City of Limited Speech: The Importance of Religious Neutrality within The First Amendment

An Evangelical Christian man, Gabriel Olivier, decided to preach his faith on a public sidewalk next to a city-owned park, near Brandon, Mississippi. He was arrested for the act, as his means of expressing his dedication to God and his religion went against local law. Unfortunately, he was removed from the premises and replaced in a more desolate space, with fewer people who could hear and retain his intended message. Because of this, Gabriel Olivier took it upon himself to move to a different, but more populated location, in order to get his point across. Afterwards, he was arrested for failure to obey the law the first time, and later fined for his crime before being let off. Olivier found this arrest and fine to be against the U.S. Constitution (more specifically, the Free Exercise Clause) and attempted to sue the federal court, who initially dismissed his case. By appealing this decision, although fined and not imprisoned, Olivier put the Supreme Court in a position to reconsider the fine in relation to the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

The salient issues regarding religion and constitutional law in this case are whether or not Gabriel Olivier has the right to preach his faith in a public forum without an established religion, that is property of the city and therefore property of the state. The Free Exercise clause guarantees that a person is able to freely exercise their religious convictions, utilizing methods such as speech, protest, and other various forms of expression. However, the Establishment Clause prohibits public gatherings, funded or otherwise endorsed by the government, should have no specific religion tied to it. This means that no religion should be established, or there should be equal treatment of all religions brought to attention by the organization. 

It is no secret that the tension between complete religious freedom and government involvement (censorship) of such acts is high, especially as the First Amendment offers strong protections on an individual’s rights to exercise and express their own beliefs. However, the fact that it also aims to ensure that no specific religion gets an upper-hand on the others from the government in a public setting must also be considered. In Olivier’s case, the primary concern is whether his religious expression in a public space infringes on the rights of others, or whether his actions could be seen as violating the regulation of separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, I do believe that allowing Gabriel Olivier to impose his beliefs on the public, acting in a state-owned forum in a religiously biased manner. While the Constitution does objectively protect the right to free speech and ability to take on any religion without persecution from the government, that is not to say there is no limit on speech in public spaces. For example, Americans are not given the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, or threaten assassination upon the President of the country. Although religious imposition is quite a step down from something this violent or duplicitous, it should be held to the same standard, as preaching one’s religious beliefs to disinterested bystanders (especially in a public space) is an attempt to persuade them to join one’s religion. This can cause unintended consequences for the broader public discourse, violating the notion of “peace and good order” guaranteed by the Madisonian values when emotionally charged factors such as exclusion come into play. 

In order to maintain religious neutrality, Olivier should be prohibited from attempting to teach Evangelical religion in a forum that is publicly owned by the government. Because it is a park owned by the government, this puts the public at risk for lack of separation between church and state. While Olivier has the right to freely express his faith, including in public spaces, the context of this situation poses the question of whether expression could be viewed as imposing a specific religious view on others, particularly in a public setting that may be intended for all members of the community regardless of their faith. Even if the government cannot restrict his speech solely based on its content, it still has the authority to regulate the manner in which speech is conducted in public areas, especially in spaces where large numbers of individuals from diverse backgrounds are gathered within state-owned property. Overall, the case raises important questions about the viability of local laws, and will set a precedent for interpretation of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, religious expression, and what constitutes a government-owned space in the future.

Should Religious Organizations be allowed to discriminate in hiring?

    Despite homelessness being something synonymous with many large American cities and metropolitan areas, these areas are not the only places where homelessness continues to grow, in fact, this issue is becoming more ubiquitous throughout the country in small urban centers. One of these urban centers where homelessness continues to grow is Yakima Washington, home to Yakima Union Gospel Mission, a Christian nonprofit that aims to help people recover from homelessness. Founded in 1936, this organization’s main aim is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through its work, while selflessly helping the community. In the 2021-22 year, Yakima Union Gospel Mission provided shelter for over 1,000 homeless individuals, served the homeless more than 130,000 meals, and assisted over 500 homeless people with their outreach missions. More than 85 years after its founding, Yakima Union Gospel Mission continues to operate by serving the homeless through its shelter, addiction recovery programs, meal services, and outreach efforts. Though it’s main efforts are focused on helping the homeless in any way possible, their mission remains clear; to spread the word of Jesus. In order to fulfill its religious calling, YUGM, in accordance with the First Amendment, has historically only hired those who effectively share the gospel which they serve, individuals who identify with and live out the Christian teachings that they evangelize. 

    Since 1949, Washington State’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) contained an exemption for hiring discrimination for religious non-profit organizations, and thus has allowed organizations such as YUGM to hire within these parameters for decades. In March of 2021, a Washington Supreme Court ruling effectively reversed the WLAD’s exemption for religious employers. The court determined that for all positions, religious nonprofits would have to hire people who disagree with, and do not adhere to, their religious beliefs. This led to ADF attorneys filing a lawsuit on behalf of the organization for their right to hire employees who share in its beliefs. After a federal district court dismissed the case, ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit, to which they participated in oral arguments. Following oral arguments, the 9th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and held that the organization can challenge Washington’s law, in addition, the federal district court ruled that it is likely unconstitutional for Washington state officials to enforce the law against the Mission while the lawsuit proceeds. Since the lawsuit, Yakima Union Gospel Mission has had to pause hiring for its IT and operations positions because of the exemption removal. The law has also prohibited the Mission from publishing a religious hiring document specifying that all employees must adhere to the Mission’s Christian beliefs.

    In my opinion, religious non-profit organizations should be given exemptions to hire who they please based upon religious convictions of the candidates. Although this is different, for for-profit corporations, as entitled under the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity laws (EEO), these non-profit organizations exist mainly for religious intentions, with their mission being to spread a particular religious doctrine, a purpose that becomes redundant or obsolete when those preaching or acting in accordance with the organization do not legitimately believe in the cause. According to 2023 Supreme Court Case Groff v. DeJoy, “employers must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, unless doing so would result in a "substantial increased cost" to the employer, rather than the previous "de minimis cost" standard.”. This means that, in addition to the U.S. EEO laws, legally, religious discrimination by any organization whether for or non-profit is legally impermissible and thus not allowed. 

    I would suggest that because purely religious organizations are allowed to exercise this form of discrimination in their hiring process in all 49 states outside of Washington, under their First Amendment rights, and the fact that only the WLAD is stopping this organization from following suit, that they should be allowed to challenge the Washington law and employ religious/doctrinal requirements in their hiring practices. Failure to allow YUGM to employ their hiring requirements actively undermines their mission as a religious organization with the intentions of spreading the gospel, by allowing people who do not have a genuine, invested interest in the mission to subvert or undermine their cause through active participation in the mission. Again, because this is a niche example of a non-profit religious organization rather than a small-scale business or large corporation, an exemption should be given under the Washington State Law by virtue of the mission’s free exercise of their First Amendment Rights. 

https://adflegal.org/article/washington-law-threatens-mission-homeless-ministry/