Search for: "Comer v. State" Results 141 - 160 of 406
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
Comer, which held that a state’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a government program that offered grants for playground resurfacing violated the free exercise clause, “masks deep division about basic Religion Clause principles. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 9:30 pm by Leah Wong
A recent Supreme Court case, Star Athletica, LLC v. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 4:14 am by Edith Roberts
Comer, in which the court struck down a state ban on public funding for improvements to a church’s preschool playground, could “pave the way for more charter schools operated by religious groups, including churches,” which “would mark a significant change in several states. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 9:20 pm by Series of Essays
Virginia State Board of Elections and Cooper v. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 4:30 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The Hill, Samuel Green weighs in on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 4:31 am by Edith Roberts
” Also at Slate, Jessica Brand argues that Turner v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 4:44 am by Edith Roberts
” At ACSblog, Brandon Garrett and Lee Kovarsky discuss Davila v. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
Comer, in which the court held that “denial of an otherwise available public benefit to religious institutions violated the Trinity Lutheran Church’s First Amendment free exercise rights, even in the face of state constitutional prohibitions on the use of public funds for religious purposes,” observing that the opinion “should provide cause for concern among those who oppose school vouchers generally and those who oppose vouchers for religious schools… [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 4:15 am by Edith Roberts
Comer, in which the court held that “it violates the Free Exercise Clause for the state to exclude an organization from participation in an otherwise neutral public benefit program solely because of its religious character”; McConnell maintains that the “decision … brought welcome clarity to an area of constitutional law that is susceptible to confusion and demagoguery. [read post]