Search for: "Jim Oleske" Results 1 - 19 of 19
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2017, 9:02 pm
"One Notable Cost of Fidelity to Smith (re: Masterpiece Cakeshop)": Jim Oleske has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 7:48 am
"Doubling Down on a Deeply Troubling Argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop": Jim Oleske has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 7:06 am
"Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Effort To Rewrite Smith and its Progeny": Jim Oleske has this post at the "Take Care" blog. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 2:09 pm by Howard Bashman
“The Supreme Court Broke Its Own Rules to Radically Redefine Religious Liberty”: Mark Joseph Stern has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate consisting of an interview with law professors Jim Oleske and Steve Vladeck. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 7:51 am by Paul Horwitz
Jim Oleske, has just published a superb symposium issue on "Law and Religion in an Increasingly Polarized Society. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 3:00 am by Legal Talk Network
On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Professor Jim Oleske from Lewis & Clark Law School, to discuss SCOTUS & religious freedom, focusing on the shadow docket, the rulings stemming from COVID restrictions, and the impact these rulings will have on future cases centered around religion. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 10:31 am
Louis), Chair and Marie Failinger (Mitchell Hamline), Rick Garnett (Notre Dame), Jim Oleske (Lewis & Clark), and Audra Savage (Emory). [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 10:31 am by Christine Corcos
Louis), Chair and Marie Failinger (Mitchell Hamline), Rick Garnett (Notre Dame), Jim Oleske (Lewis & Clark), and Audra Savage (Emory). [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 1:20 pm by Jim Oleske
Jim Oleske is a professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 4:28 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Jim Oleske explores the contested meaning of “general applicability” in the Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence as it relates to the religion-clause issues in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Jim Oleske pushes back against the argument, made in an amicus brief on behalf of the baker, that civil rights laws like Colorado’s are “constitutionally vulnerable because the state is ‘discriminating between squarely opposite sides on a deeply divisive moral issue’ and taking sides in a ‘culture war’” over marriage equality. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 4:38 am by Edith Roberts
” Also at Take Care, Jim Oleske counters the government’s argument that the president’s campaign-trail statements cannot be considered in assessing the motives behind the entry ban by arguing that “the federal government itself has successfully relied upon campaign statements to demonstrate discriminatory purpose in litigation, and it has explicitly rejected the free speech chilling argument it now offers. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
At Take Care, Jim Oleske unpacks Justices Elena Kagan’s and Neil Gorsuch’s dueling concurrences in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Jim Oleske argues that the court should “bring its free exercise doctrine into parity with its free speech doctrine” by “providing a floor of modest protection against incidental burdens without requiring religious exemptions that – like the one sought in Masterpiece – would interfere with substantial state interests, such as ensuring equality of treatment in the marketplace. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 4:09 am by Edith Roberts
” At Take Care, Jim Oleske contends that in its briefing in the entry-ban litigation, the federal government failed to account for the fact that it has previously taken a position contrary to its current contention “that courts should not consider campaign statements and other unofficial statements when deciding if a government policy has a discriminatory purpose. [read post]