Podcasts about institutionalized persons act

On this episode of Mormonish Podcast, Rebecca and Landon are joined by attorney Kolby Reddish as we discuss RLUIPA, a key component in the Fairview LDS temple situation.RLUIPA stands for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The LDS church uses this law to intimidate towns by insinuating that their zoning ordinances and laws are superseded by RLUIPA and the church can sue towns if they can't build the temple they want, even when it exceeds established zoning codes.But is this really the case? Our discussion in this episode digs into what RLUIPA actually says and what it allows. It's a complex issue but Kolby is able to shed some real light on the law and its uses. You won't want to miss this!***How to DONATE to Mormonish Podcast: If you would like to help financially support our podcast, you can DONATE to support Mormonish Podcast here: Mormonish Podcast is a 501(c) (3) https://donorbox.org/mormonish-podcast ****WE HAVE MERCH! **** If you'd like to purchase Mormonish Merch, you can visit our Merch store here: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mormonishmerch We appreciate our Mormonish viewers and listeners so much! Don't forget to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to Mormonish Podcast! Contact Mormonish Podcast: mormonishpodcast@gmail.com FAIR USE DISCLAIMER All Media in this video (including the thumbnail) is used for the purpose of review and critique. The images in the thumbnail are used as the primary means of visually identifying the subject matter of the video.

Welcome to the first Pocket Park Episode! These episodes are shorter and focus on current events, stories, studies, etc, that are happening right now in the world. In this episode, Shelley and Mary, focus on a case in Brookings, Oregon that revolves around the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Will it have lasting impacts on religious institutions and land use across the United States? How can planners avoid situations where they get in hot water around the RLUIPA? What would constitute a time when the RLUIPA would be relevant? We get into it all! Sources from the episode:"Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Religious Land Use Case Involving Oregon Church That Feeds People Who are Homeless or Hungry", US Dept. of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-religious-land-use-case-involving-oregon-church"The Quiet Religious-Freedom Fight that is Remaking America" The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/rluipa/543504/"Update on the Justice Department's Enforcement of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act: 2010-2016", US Dept. of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/d9/07-22-16_rluipa_report.pdf"RLUIPA Compliance Tips" APA Planning Magazine, https://www.planning.org/login/?next=/planning/2018/jan/legallessons/"What Constitutes a 'Substantial Burden' under RLUIPA?" Zoning Practice, https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9006935/Want to be a part of the podcast? Send in an email! The team behind the upcoming Better Planners podcast wants to hear from you about the real life issues you handle as a planner. What are the honest, gritty, wicked problems you find yourself managing? To share your experiences, email betterplannerspodcast@gmail.com Your message might end up in one of the upcoming podcast episodes. You can be as anonymous or as identifiable as you want. What is Better Planners?Better Planners is a podcast brought to you by the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association (OAPA). It delves into deep conversations about relevant and timely stories surrounding the urban planning realm including the ground-level work of planners, community development advocates, and allied professions. With an emphasis on amplifying the voices and stories of marginalized communities. The episodes will be a resource and guide to provide insights into planning related topics people face on a daily basis that may be inspiring, challenging, questioning, and/or innovative. Where to find us:Website: https://oregon.planning.org/community/betterplannerspodcast/Instagram: @betterplanners

Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC's website: BJConline.org/RFRA Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way's “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link. Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link. Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA.    Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies. Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014. Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby's narrow victory   Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Podcasts: S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020) S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020) S3, Ep. 03: What's going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021) Video: Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA Resources from BJC on cases: Zubik v. Burwell (2016) Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) Additional reading: Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015 Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014 RFRA's constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014 RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013 Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013 Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Buy Kevin Richberg's New Batch of Honey!  Amanda Tyler is executive director of BJC (Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty), leading the organization as it upholds the historic Baptist principle of religious liberty: defending the free exercise of religion and protecting against its establishment by government. She is the lead organizer of BJC's Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign and co-host of BJC's Respecting Religion podcast. Tyler's constitutional law analysis and advocacy for faith freedom for all have been featured by major news outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, CNN, and MSNBC. Religion News Service named Tyler one of “2022's rising stars in religion,” and she regularly preaches in Baptist churches, speaks at denominational gatherings, and leads sessions on college campuses and with community groups of all sizes. A member of the Texas and U.S. Supreme Court Bar, Tyler has experience working in Congress, in a private legal practice, and serving as a law clerk for a federal judge. She testified before Congress in 2022 about the ways in which Christian nationalism proves cover for white supremacy and in 2018 about threats to religious liberty around the world. Originally from Austin, Texas, Tyler grew up hearing about the cherished Baptist principles of religious liberty and the separation of church and state as a member of Highland Park Baptist Church. Because she was committed to these principles, Tyler sought out BJC when she moved to Washington to attend Georgetown University, and she began volunteering in the office. Tyler graduated from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University with a bachelor's degree in foreign service, magna cum laude. She was hired by BJC to serve as assistant to the general counsel, working closely with Brent Walker, James Dunn, Melissa Rogers and Holly Hollman. During this time, she wrote columns for Report from the Capital, drafted statements on religious liberty issues, presented educational programs, and coordinated the broad coalition in support of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Tyler left BJC to enroll in The University of Texas School of Law, where she received her J.D. with honors. In 2019, the school named her their “Outstanding Young Alumna.” Following law school, Tyler worked in private practice and served as a law clerk for a U.S. district court judge in Dallas, Texas. She later joined the staff of U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett in Austin and Washington, D.C. In Austin, Tyler served as the congressman's district director, leading the staff in the development and execution of an outreach agenda for a 7-county congressional district, as well as serving as a spokesperson for his office. She later served as Rep. Doggett's counsel for the Ways and Means Committee. Tyler was named executive director of BJC in 2016, and she began her tenure in January 2017. She lives in Dallas with her husband, Robert Behrendt, and their son. You can follow her on X: @AmandaTylerBJC. Learn more about Amanda in her BJC staff Q&A.    Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe      

Do you know the real story behind Juneteenth or the true essence of the 13th amendment's role in ending slavery? Join us as we debunk popular misconceptions and highlight the unfortunate reality of information control. We dive into how the spread of factually correct information has been met with opposition, masking the truths of our history. But that's not all. We delve into an incredible story that's unfolding in Addison, Texas. A church, established by former slaves, is now at the center of a property rights and religious liberties dispute. The Wessons, a resilient family dedicated to their faith, have been tirelessly negotiating to acquire a special use permit for their church. Yet, their efforts have been repeatedly rejected by the Addison City Council. We dissect the implications of their struggle, reflecting on the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the United States Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.Joining us for this compelling discussion is Jeremy Dys from First Liberty, who sheds light on the ongoing case and the importance of understanding the Constitution and its principles. We take a deep dive into the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, exploring their sponsors and significance. You might be surprised to hear was in support of religious liberty just a couple decades ago. We urge you to listen in, as we explore the intersection of faith, culture, and property rights. Let's challenge our understanding of religious liberty laws, property rights, and the basic principles of the Constitution. Tune in, and let's unravel these crucial issues together.Support the show

Imagine your house of worship is facing destruction and your elected officials could stop it, but they were more concerned with how others view your sacred space. That's the scenario facing the San Carlos Apache and other tribes in their fight to preserve their sacred land of Chí'chil Biłdagoteel, loosely translated in English as “Oak Flat.” In this podcast, learn more about this issue facing our Indigenous neighbors and how you can use your position to make a difference and save sacred land. Just because a religious group doesn't build a steeple, it doesn't mean the sacredness of the land is any less than a church or mosque or other worship site.   Show notes: Segment 1: Land use and religious freedom (segments starts at 01:12) RLUIPA is an acronym for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which became law in 2000. Starting at 12:17, we played audio of congressional testimony from Naelyn Pike, a youth Apache Leader. She gave this testimony on March 12, 2020, during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States in the U.S. House of Representatives. You can watch the entire hearing at this link, and her testimony begins at 8:21 in that video.   Segment 2: How did we get here? Sweetheart deals in the NDAA (starting at 18:03)  NDAA stands for the “National Defense Authorization Act,” which is the bill that authorizes the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense.  The Save Oak Flat Act is H.R. 1884/S. 915.  Learn more about Chí'chil Biłdagoteel and the Save Oak Flat Act, including social media posts you can share, at BJConline.org/SaveOakFlat. The individual petition you can sign will be linked on that page in the near future. Read the letter from more than 100 religious and religious freedom groups sent to Congress asking to Save Oak Flat. If you would like to contact your members of Congress about co-sponsoring the Save Oak Flat Act, here is a sample script you can use: Hello, my name is [Name]. I am a constituent and am calling to ask Representative/Senator [Name] to co-sponsor the Save Oak Flat Act. Oak Flat is an ancient sacred site for the Apache and several other tribes in the Southwest. The federal government is giving the land to a foreign mining operation that will totally destroy this holy ground. Oak Flat's sacredness is not lessened because their tradition does not build a steeple to mark it. Will Rep./Sen. [Name] co-sponsor the Save Oak Flat Act? Not sure who your members of Congress are? Click here to find out.   Segment 3: What can you do to Save Oak Flat? (starting at 34:18) See a list of 18 ways you can advocate for Oak Flat in this piece by BJC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Hawks on Medium: Celebrate Earth Day 2022 by protecting Oak Flat Learn more about the Oak Flat Challenge in this article on Medium: What does 1.8 have to do with faith freedom for all? See examples of the Oak Flat Challenge on Facebook here and in our Instagram highlight here.  Hear from Indigenous voices on faith freedom this summer in Dallas at our BJC Luncheon. On Thursday, June 30, we'll be at the Hyatt Regency Dallas, and you can learn more and purchase a ticket at BJConline.org/Luncheon. Plus, we'll be doing a live recording of the Respecting Religion podcast on June 29 during our workshop at the CBF General Assembly. There is no cost to attend the assembly in Dallas – learn more at this link.  As always, you can contact Amanda and Holly by writing to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org.   Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

It's been quite the week for the Supreme Court, releasing a decision in a case we were watching and responding to the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion in a case that captured the attention of the entire country. In this episode, Holly and Amanda break down Monday's ruling in Shurtleff v. Boston – about a city flying a Christian flag – and the recent decision in Ramirez v. Collier – concerning religion in the execution chamber. They also react to the big Supreme Court news this week: the leak of a draft opinion for Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case challenging a Mississippi law that restricts abortion. Amanda and Holly share their reactions to what's happening at the Court and preview what's to come.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1: The leaked Dobbs draft opinion and a decision in Shurtleff v. Boston (segments starts at 00:55, the discussion of Shurtleff begins at 8:16) Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward of Politico broke the story with the leaked draft opinion: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows Amanda and Holly discussed Shurtleff v. Boston on two previous episodes this season: They previewed the oral arguments in episode 8 and reviewed the arguments – and made predictions – in episode 10. Read the Supreme Court's opinion in the case, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and the concurring opinions at this link.   Segment 2: Say “yes” unless you have a really good reason to say “no” (starting at 23:41)  The Supreme Court issued its decision in Ramirez vs. Collier on March 24. Amanda and Holly discussed the case in episode 2 and episode 4. Read the Supreme Court's decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the concurring opinions and Justice Clarence Thomas's dissent at this link. “RLUIPA” is shorthand for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which became law in 2000. The new filing from a district attorney in Ramirez v. Collier is discussed in this New York Times article by Ruth Graham: Days After Setting an Execution Date, a Texas Prosecutor Reverses Course   Segment 3: A rich holiday season (starting at 38:45) Amanda and Holly mentioned this article by Adelle Banks in Religion News Service: Second gentleman Doug Emhoff touts ‘critical' interfaith collaboration As always, you can contact Amanda and Holly by writing to RespectingReligion@BJConline.org. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

Ramirez v. Collier (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Background. On July 19, 2004, 20-year-old John Henry Ramirez (born June 29, 1984), a former United States Marine, accompanied by two female acquaintances, murdered 46-year-old convenience store worker Pablo Castro outside a Times Market in Corpus Christi, Texas. Ramirez stabbed Castro a total of twenty-nine times, resulting in his death. The trio stole less than two dollars from Castro and fled the scene without entering the store. The two female acquaintances were captured a day later but Ramirez fled to Mexico and was not captured until 2008. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death soon thereafter. Ramirez was originally scheduled to be executed in September 2020. That warrant was withdrawn. In 2021, Ramirez filed suit to challenge the Texas execution protocol under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, seeking to have his minister be allowed to lay hands on his body and audibly pray during the execution process. The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit both denied stays of execution, the latter over the dissent of Judge James L Dennis. Ramirez then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Background. David Buren Wilson was elected a member of the Houston Community College System's board in 2013 who was censured for repeated incidences of what other members of the Board of Trustees deemed to be behavior that was not becoming of an elected official or beneficial to the HCC system. Wilson filed suit claiming that the censure was an offense to his First Amendment rights. Supreme Court. Certiorari was granted in the case on April 26, 2021. In a March 24, 2022 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Wilson's First Amendment rights were not violated by his fellow board members' censure of him because the censure did not result in any hindrance of his ability to exercise his free speech in his capacity as an elected official and member of the public. The opinion cites the fact that the use of censure by elected bodies to address the behavior and actions of their members is a practice with a long history in the United States, and it also states that the censure itself constitutes an exercise of First Amendment rights by Wilson's colleagues on the board who voted to reprimand him.

QUESTION PRESENTED:1) Whether, consistent with the free exercise clause and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Texas' decision to allow Ramirez's pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbidding the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner as he dies, substantially burden the exercise of his religion, so as to require Texas to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest; and (2) whether, considering the free exercise clause and RLUIPA, Texas' decision to allow Ramirez's pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbidding the pastor from singing prayers, saying prayers or scripture, or whispering prayers or scripture, substantially burden the exercise of his religion, so as to require Texas to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Sep 07 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 7, 2021)Sep 07 2021 | Application (21A33) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Alito.Sep 07 2021 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.Sep 08 2021 | Brief of respondent Collier, Bryan, et al. in opposition filed.Sep 08 2021 | Reply of applicant John H. Ramirez filed.Sep 08 2021 | Application (21A33) referred to the Court.Sep 08 2021 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.Sep 08 2021 | The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule that will allow the case to be argued in October or November 2021.Sep 09 2021 | This case is set for argument on Monday, November 1, 2021. Petitioner's brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support of petitioner or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Monday, September 27, 2021. Respondents' brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support of respondents, are to be filed on or before Friday, October 15, 2021. Petitioner's reply brief is due on or before 2 p.m., Monday, October 25, 2021.Sep 09 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, November 1, 2021.Sep 10 2021 | The parties are directed to submit briefs that address whether petitioner adequately exhausted his audible prayer claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The parties are also directed to address whether petitioner has satisfied his burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to demonstrate that a sincerely held religious belief has been substantially burdened by restrictions on either audible prayer or physical contact. The parties are further directed to address whether the government has satisfied its burden under RLUIPA to demonstrate its policy is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. Finally, the parties are directed to address the type of equitable relief petitioner is seeking, the appropriate standard for this relief, and whether that standard has been met here. See Hill v. McDonough, 547 U. S. 573, 584 (2006) (setting forth a four- factor test for equitable relief). The parties may address other relevant issues, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.Sep 13 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John RamirezSep 13 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Bryan CollierSep 21 2021 | CIRCULATEDSep 22 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by respondent Bryan Collier.Sep 22 2021 | Lodging proposal letter of respondents filed.Sep 22 2021 | Letter in opposition to respondents' lodging proposal filed by petitioner.Sep 23 2021 | Reply letter regarding lodging proposal filed by respondents.Sep 23 2021 | Sur-reply letter regarding respondents lodging proposal filed by petitioner.Sep 27 2021 | Joint appendix (Volume I) filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief of petitioner John Ramirez filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Liberty Institute filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Former Prison Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Spiritual Advisors and Former Corrections Officials filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Religious-Liberty Scholars Douglas Laycock, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops filed. (Distributed)Sep 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the PLRA and Prison Grievance Systems filed. (Distributed)Sep 29 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.Sep 29 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Oct 01 2021 | Motion of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Oct 12 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument DENIED.Oct 13 2021 | Respondents' September 22, 2021 lodging proposal approved, and submission of the non-record materials is requested by the Clerk.Oct 15 2021 | Brief of respondent Bryan Collier filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al., filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Maria Chavon Aguilar, Fernando Castro, Pablo Castro Jr., & Roberto Salcedo Jr. filed. (Distributed)Oct 15 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)Oct 19 2021 | Respondents' lodging material received (including redacted declaration for public record and the unredacted sealed declaration).Oct 22 2021 | ARGUMENT RESCHEDULED for Tuesday, November 9, 2021.Oct 25 2021 | Reply of petitioner John Ramirez filed. (Distributed)Nov 09 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Seth Kretzer, Houston, Tex. For United States, as amicus curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On this episode, Maxwell Goss speaks with Daniel Dalton, the nation's foremost litigator representing churches and religious bodies in land use and real property disputes. Dan is the author of several books including Religious Property Disputes and the Law, published by the American Bar Association. Dan discusses a pair of important cases involving religious land use and the free exercise clause. Dan also provides insights for handling lawsuits against government entities. ---------- “Government entities always have the upper hand . . . They have the ability, through statute and through judicial creation, to do things that anywhere else in the world would be illegal.” -Daniel P. Dalton ---------- 00:19 – Introduction 01:43 – Daniel Dalton's law practice 03:48 – Daniel's latest book, Religious Property Disputes and the Law 05:26 – Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA) 07:32 – Religious congregations separating from their denominations 09:34 – The Our Lady of Peace case 16:32 – The West Valley Christian Center case 22:14 – Litigating against a government agency vs. litigating against a corporation 25:43 – Dan's advice for lawyers suing a government entity 27:18 – Where to find Daniel online ---------- Daniel P. Dalton is the nation's preeminent authority in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, also known as RLUIPA. He is one of the country's most experienced attorneys in representing churches and other religious institutions in land use and zoning cases. Dan is the author of books including Religious Property Disputes and the Law and Litigating Religious Land Use Cases, published by the American Bar Association. Dan's firm, Dalton & Tomich, PLC, is the national leader in successfully helping churches, other religious institutions and their insurers defend their rights in land use and zoning matters under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The firm has helped clients win cases against municipalities and other local government bodies from coast to coast, with experience serving both as general counsel and special litigation counsel. ---------- https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/our-team/ (Daniel Dalton's Attorney Bio) https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/415132237/ (Religious Property Disputes and the Law) https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/252179232/ (Litigating Religious Land Use Cases) ---------- https://www.thelitigationwarroom.com/ (Show Website) https://twitter.com/LitWarRoom (Twitter) https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-litigation-war-room-podcast/ (LinkedIn) https://www.facebook.com/The-Litigation-War-Room-Podcast-111235441143108 (Facebook)

The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a type of case it usually addresses in its emergency or “shadow” docket: Questions surrounding clergy and religious exercise in the execution chamber. Amanda and Holly review the issue by considering cases over the past few years, including how the justices have shifted over time, with strong words from Justice Elena Kagan and the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In segment two, they dive into the first religious liberty case the Court will hear oral arguments this term in Ramirez v. Collier (starting at 14:50), including the statute at the heart of the case: RLUIPA. In segment three, Amanda and Holly step back to discuss their personal experiences visiting death row early in their legal careers.   Show notes: Segment 1: Recapping the past few years of clergy in the death chamber (starting at 00:51) Visit the website of the Death Penalty Information Center for statistics and research around the death penalty and its application. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act is often abbreviated “RLUIPA.” Learn more at BJConline.org/RLUIPA. Visit the latest news section of our website to read about previous Supreme Court cases involving clergy in the execution chamber. Amanda Tyler wrote a 2019 column for Religion News Service about the different outcomes in the Dunn v. Ray (Alabama) and Murphy v. Collier (Texas) cases. Read it at this link.    Segment 2: SCOTUS takes a case about clergy in the execution chamber on its regular docket  (starting at 14:50) BJC joined this brief in the Ramirez v. Collier case with the Christian Legal Society and other groups. Read more on our website. Holt v. Hobbs was a 2015 case regarding a Muslim inmate's request to grow a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his faith. Learn more at BJConline.org/HoltvHobbs.   Segment three: Personal reflections on visiting death row (starting at 28:10) To learn more about the abolition of the death penalty in Virginia, check out this piece by Dakin Andone for CNN: Why Virginia's abolition of the death penalty is a big deal for the state and the US  Amanda read from this piece by Elizabeth Breunig for The Atlantic: The State of Texas v. Jesus Christ Linda Greenhouse asked the question “Why did the Supreme Court stop this particular execution?” in the New York Times. Adamp Liptak previewed the Ramirez case for the New York Times in this article: Supreme Court Stays Execution in Dispute Over Pastor's Role in Death Chamber Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

The guest for this episode is Professor Khaled Beydoun, an Associate Professor of Law and the Associate Director of Civil Rights and Social Justice Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne State University Law School. Professor Beydoun’s scholarship focuses on national security, Islamaphobia, modern policing and critical race theory. Professor Beydoun joins the pod to discuss his recently published article with the Minnesota Law Review titled “On Sacred Land” which analyzes how the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act counters land use discrimination against Muslims. The full article is available on the Minnesota Law Review’s website -> www.minnesotalawreview.org Follow Professor Beydoun on Twitter -> https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun Read the latest issue and archives of the Minnesota Law Review -> www.minnesotalawreview.org Follow the Minnesota Law on Twitter -> twitter.com/MinnesotaLawRev Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting law.umn.edu and following Minnesota Law on Twitter twitter.com/UofMNLawSchool.

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Alabama death row inmate Willie Smith’s request to have his pastor present at his execution, rejecting the state’s claim that having a spiritual adviser present interferes with prison security. Tune in to hear how the Supreme Court’s religious liberty ruling in Dunn v. Smith might affect future death penalty cases. On today’s episode, our hosts also chat about Yuval Levin’s latest piece in National Review on the sorry state of Congress and the New York Times’ 2020 Hulu documentary about Britney Spears.   Show Notes: -Dunn v. Smith, federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case Morse v. Frederick. -“Congress’s Day” by Yuval Levin in National Review and “Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Yuval Levin About the Future of the Republican Party” in the New York Times. -Framing Britney Spears Hulu documentary. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an exciting time in the tiny house movement, as cities and states across the country are looking at legalizing tiny houses in some form. There are many strategies that advocates of tiny houses are using to push for tiny house legalization. I recently heard from a listener, today’s guest Dan Armstrong, about something called RILUPA, or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. There have been several examples of churches and nonprofits using this law to legally build tiny house villages. Dan is here to explain what RILUPA is and how it can be used to help forge a path forward for tiny house villages. The post How This Little-Known Law Can Help Build Legal Tiny House Villages with Dan Armstrong – #083 appeared first on The Tiny House.

Christian attorney John Mauck of the Mauck & Baker law firm here in Chicago joins Monte Larrick to discuss the legal side of social issues. Specifically: suppressing evangelistic efforts in Millennium Park; a measure in Congress which would deprive organizations on the SPLC “hate-list” of their tax-exempt status; SCOTUS reviewing LGBTQ reparative therapy and discrimination laws and tangible things we should do to combat them. In the second half of the show, they discuss the “Equality Act” and other cases Mauck & Baker are involved in here in the State of Illinois. John Mauck has been an attorney for over 40 years, representing churches and ministries in Chicago to insure land use for religious groups in restricted areas of the city, among other issues. His work in drafting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which became federal law in 2000, has helped congregations across the country freely worship. Please listen and share this week's podcast with your like-minded friends:

John Mauck is a founding partner at Mauck & Baker and has been an attorney for over 40 years. He has represented many churches and ministries in Chicago and around the nation in their fight for religious land use in restricted areas of their city. John’s work drafting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, also known as RLUIPA, which became federal law in 2000, has helped congregations across the country freely worship. Since 2000, John has personally been involved in around 100 RLUIPA cases.

Two virtually back to back conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court on the right of prisoners to have a spiritual guide of their own choosing in their death chamber highlight a new frontier on the separation of church and state. In one case a black Muslim man was refused an imam in his final moments and the Supreme Court did not stop the execution. Domenique Ray was put to death on February 7th.  Less than two months later a white Buddhist in Texas is also refused a spiritual advisor in his execution chamber, and this time the Supreme Court halts the execution.   The Joint Baptist Committee for Religious Freedom is a faith-based lobbying and advocacy group based in Washington DC that seeks to preserve and defend the separation of church and state. To understand what these decisions mean, Executive Director Amanda Tyler spoke with Beliefs producer Jay Woodward via Skype.       Transcript: Amanda thank you for joining us on Beliefs. Thank you and welcome. Oh thanks so much for having me We asked you to come to Beliefs this week because you recently wrote an opinion article for Religion News Service about two Supreme Court decisions on religious freedom and the death penalty. Tell us about the first case, the execution of Domenique Ray.  Sure. So The issue there was Mr. Ray who had committed a heinous murder back in the 90s while he was in prison. He had converted to Islam and he had been working with a spiritual adviser with an imam who was provided through the Alabama Department of Corrections for several years. A few weeks before his scheduled execution date, the prison official came to talk to him about what was going to happen on the day of execution. And at that point he learned that the Alabama's policy was to have a Christian chaplain accompany him into the execution chamber and be with him at the moment of death. He objected to this practice. He said I don't want a Christian chaplain with me in that moment I do want to see mom who's been working with me I would like him in the chamber and at that point the state denied his request and when it came to the Supreme Court the majority justices said that Mr. Ray had waited too long to race these claims and Mr. Ray was was executed on February. So so that's Dominique Ray. He's scheduled to be executed on February 7th and 10 days prior to which he learns that his mom will not be allowed in the chamber with him at his moment of passing. So tell us about the second case Patrick Murphy. Yeah. So this case comes out of Texas. Patrick Murphy again committed a heinous crime. And while he was in prison, I believe, he also converted to Buddhism. And so Texas had a similar policy to Alabama that they would only allow state officials who were chaplains into the execution chamber and the only chaplains the at the state employed for this purpose were Christian or Muslim no Buddhists. So you know he requested to the state that his that he have his Buddhist advisor present with him in the execution chamber. Again the state denied that request. He did not file his claim his with the federal court in this case until two days before his scheduled execution. So this time the courts said that his execution could go forward. On the same sort of reasoning from the Ray case that he had just waited too long this time it works its way up to the Supreme Court and they come up with the opposite decision. They say no that the state of Texas cannot go forward with this execution until it allows a Buddhist spiritual adviser in the chamber with him. Well that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense..!?   This is really shocking to a lot of court watchers. We felt like this court which has been very solicitous of free exercise claims very interested in protecting religious liberty in in other contexts that they would deny this prisoner. His imam was very shocking. And then less than two months later the Court issued, basically, the exact opposite opinion.  Yeah. So we had 10 days in the Ray case two days in the Murphy case so it can't be that that it wasn't an issue of timing. And so I think a lot of people then ask the question you know what. What's the difference between these two cases right? So that leaves us with only a couple possibilities for what that means, right?  One, that the court took on board some of the public outcry regarding this decision and it affected their thinking so much that they made a contrary decision. Or two, we have to acknowledge that Dominic Ray was a black Muslim whose execution was allowed to proceed, but Patrick Murphy is a white Buddhist and so in considering his situation, the court reversed itself inside of two months.  Yeah… I tend to think it is more the first. That the justices who changed their votes in these cases were really swayed by the public outcry and the advocacy both by their colleague Justice Kagan who wrote the dissenting in the Ray case which she called the court's ruling that the execution could go forward as profoundly wrong. But the fact that the court got it right to me on the second case is small solace for Mr. Ray of course who was killed without a spiritual adviser at his side. Now in addition to this being a fascinating moment for Supreme Court watchers, it also is important for understanding what is the state’s role in the spiritual lives of US citizens, specifically a conversation on the separation of church and state. Your organization, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty advocates and lobbies in this space. Can you tell us about what you do? Sure. So at B.J.C. see we defend and extend religious freedom for all people. We do it from a uniquely faith based perspective from the Baptist faith tradition and in doing so we are the only denominational based organization that works solely on religious freedom and separation of church and state. We're located in Washington right across the street from the Supreme Court. We've been doing this work for more than 80 years and a lot of our work is done with the Supreme Court filing friend of the court briefs in nearly every church state case that comes before them as well as working in advocacy with Congress and doing education with groups around the country. A faith based perspective on religious freedoms cases is a unique perspective isn't it? There aren't many faith based organizations that so actively pursue the separation of church and state, and the rigorous enforcement of the Establishment Clause like you do. Is that correct? I think that's true I think because we see religious freedom as uniquely protected in this country by robust protection of both of our First Amendment protections that government will not establish religion that government will stay neutral in matters of religion and that that will lead to the greatest freedom possible for all faiths and for people of no faith at all that both of those are equally important and protecting religious freedom that that serves well both people who are in a majority religion status and those in a minority status including people who don't claim a faith tradition. So, as I understand it, that’s how we’ve been looking at these cases for the past 10 or 20 years, that we are exploring the distinctions between the freedom TO… exercise freely, and the freedom FROM interference with our practice. Are those things in tension? Are they harmonious? Is one becoming more prominent? Yeah. I think religious freedom requires both… that they're not mutually exclusive and that in order to have freedom to practice your religion you also have to have government not taking a side in that, and that view that government must remain neutral in matters of religion is not anti-religious. If we look back at the founding of the country and the drafting of the First Amendment it was people of faith including many Baptists who insisted on government neutrality in matters of religion as a way to protect their religious exercise. That's because when governments take sides they necessarily pick and choose and religion is best left in private hands and that the government's involvement will only dilute religious practice and could of course harm it for those who are being persecuted. So then what do the decisions in these two cases mean for your work at the Baptist Joint Committee and where are we as a country in this new turn in the conversation about how religious liberty should affect not just prisoners, but convicts on death row? Well one I think we're having a pretty robust conversation about what religious freedom means and what it means in a pluralistic society and it's been heartening to see groups that don't always agree on these issues coming together really in defense of allowing all faiths to have representation there in the death penalty chamber. I do think it's important to look at what Texas did after the court's decision and Murphy the decision from the court again which was unsigned just said that the state may not carry out Mr. Murphy's execution unless they permit his Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist referent of the state's choosing to accompany Murphy into the execution chamber during the execution. I was reading the entirety of the opinion there was that one statement. In Justice Cavanaugh's concurrence. Again this isn't the force of the whole court it's what he thought. He gave the state kind of he thought the state might have two options. They could either allow a Buddhist Reverend or they could say no Reverend at all. And it's that second option that the state has said. They said look you know if this is gonna be the law then we're just not going to have any spiritual advisers in the chamber. And I think that's the exact wrong direction we B.J.C. say when anyone's religious freedom is denied everyone is threatened and I think that's what we see here. You know here we saw Mr. Murphy is having his religious freedom denied when his request was refused. But the state's response isn't to accommodate that religion. It's to say well if we have to provide it to you then we just won't provide it for anyone. And that of course hurts not only Mr. Murphy but every other prisoner who might be executed now without a spiritual adviser at his side. That seems strangely petulant... As though you could say Justice Kavanaugh provided an absurd alternative by saying either provide for all faiths or no faiths. Do you suppose it was imagined that Texas would actually turn around and say well we'll choose no faith guide comfort for prisoners being put to death? I think we see courts having a strong deference to the state in matters Prison Control and particularly in matters of execution. And so I think the Justice cabinet suggestion there was a sign of deference because of course the state's arguments in both of these cases have been, this is all about prison security. Their argument isn't that that these other faiths don't deserve representation but they say well it would somehow impact the security of the execution process. And so I think to see Texas go in that direction they're really just hunkering down on that argument. I think many of us in the religious freedom world think that that's not right. So it will be interesting to see if we see future litigation of this case as it relates to Mr. Murphy and what impact that might have. And if the court will indeed say there is actually a first amendment or a statutory right under something called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that provides extra protection for prisoners that they actually have an affirmative right to have a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. That could be a question that we'll be seeing in the coming weeks or months the court address. Well that was my next question: What is the horizon for death penalty cases religious freedom cases what are we going to be talking about for the next three to five years. Well I do think that this kind of situation where we're finding policies that are both written and then executed in a way that show a preference for a majority religion… Christianity are going to be challenged in this way by minority religions and by people who ascribe to people who identify with minority religions. It'll be interesting to see if the states respond in a similar way that instead of accommodating minority religions will just take away the accommodation for all this Supreme Court has been very solicitous of free exercise rights, but those cases have been coming up recently mostly in the context of Christians raising those claims. When we start saying free exercise rights cases coming from minority rule elections in will be it'll be interesting to see if the court is consistent in its application of the law for them. But this particular controversy about religious freedom in the death chamber - it feels like we haven't heard the end of this because the justices are having conversations with each other in these opinions. And I think they might be reflective of conversations they're having inside and with each other at the court. And we'll see if we see future. Arguments or decisions. I do think this is an evolving area. It's. It's an interesting one and it's one that has gripped the attention of court watchers and in everyday Americans as well. Is there anything else that you think we’ll be talking about in religious freedoms coming up? What’s going to be next? Well the Supreme Court has another church state case pending right now. It's called American Legion vs. American Humanist Association. It's also known as the Bladensburg cross case  And this is the World War One Memorial Cross that sits at a traffic intersection, right? That’s right. And the question before the court is whether a 40 foot cross on government land constitutes an establishment of religion. The parties who are looking to keep this cross in place have made an argument that the cross is a secular symbol. and a secular symbol that it just stands for death in general and honoring war dead, and therefore it can stay on government land. And it's in the middle of a very busy intersection and the American Humanist Association challenged this crosses and establishment as the government taking sides and sponsoring a Christian symbol. And so the justices will have to decide the fate of this particular cross. But also. They're asking the question would you know future such memorials be allowed. So we'll see the decision on the court in this case probably this June.  And it will be the BJP has been involved in this case we filed a brief saying that yes this is an establishment of religion because the cross is a religious symbol and we were responding to arguments from the other side that the cross is just a secular symbol. We say the cross is a religious symbol in fact it is the preeminent symbol of Christianity and for the government to claim that it is merely a secular symbol is offensive to Christianity as it attempts to strip the cross of its religious meaning. Amanda Tyler thank you so much for joining us and beliefs. Thanks so much for having me.      

After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community.  Learn more about how First Liberty defended this church against the south Texas city’s zoning laws by visiting FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. After three years of litigation, Cornerstone Church by the Bay wins their case and can use their own property to minister to the community.  The south Texas church, and the private school that it runs, purchased property that they hoped would allow them to leave their rented space and continue their ministry on their own property.  But, the city’s zoning laws were confusing.  It allowed non-religious institutions to occupy that part of town, but the zoning rules did not allow churches there.  When the church asked for a special use permit, the town’s Board of Aldermen denied the request, keeping churches from operating in that area. Left with no other option, Cornerstone turned to First Liberty.  We filed a lawsuit on their behalf alleging that the town’s zoning actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act along with the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Not long after, the court granted our request for a preliminary injunction while the litigation continued.  But, the town has decided to quit that litigation. In settling with Cornerstone, the Town of Bayview agreed to issue the special use permit the church requested over three years ago.  Houses of worship have legal rights that must be respected by local government officials.  This church is now free to serve their community, on their own property, as every church should be. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

In the year 2000, against strong opposition,  pasthe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed Congress by unanimous vote. It's supporters proclaimed that "God worked a miracle" that day on Capitol Hill. Our guest, John Mauck, was instrumental in crafting the ideas and language that became the Act. He tells us the story of how it became law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this special edition of Illinois Family Spotlight, Monte Larrick talks to John Mauck, an attorney and partner of the Mauck and Baker law firm, established in Chicago in 2001, is nationally known for representing churches, religious institutions, businesses, and individuals. John has been an attorney for over 30 years, representing many churches and ministries in Chicago to provide religious land use in restricted areas of the city. His work drafting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which became federal law in 2000 has helped congregations across the country freely worship.… Continue Reading

American law has many protections of religious freedom. Among these are various means by which religious people and organizations can seek exemptions from otherwise-applicable legal requirements when those rules would burden their religious beliefs. This episode discusses the development of those exemptions under the First Amendment, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.Here are some of the legal documents Josh discusses in the episode: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Subscribe to the Law Meets Gospel Podcast iTunes Google Play RSS Support the Law Meets Gospel Podcast Patreon.com Sign up to contribute an amount you choose for each episode the Law Meets Gospel Podcast publishes.

A 75-minute discussion between scholars with a live teacher audience, this program explores the impact of several key US Supreme Court cases on the definition and limits of religious liberty in America, originally broadcast on 3 October 2015. Jeff Sikkenga (Ashland University) and Matthew Franck (Witherspoon Institute) will discuss three recent Supreme Court cases that dealt with religion: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby; Abercrombie and Fitch v. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and Holt v. Hobbs. In the Hobby Lobby case the court ruled that closely-held for profit companies were exempt from provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated the religious beliefs of the companies owners. The Court’s opinion may be found here. The Abercrombie case concerned the decision of Abercrombie and Fitch not to hire someone because they wore a head scarf, which violated the company’s dress code.  The court ruled that the job applicant did not have to specifically ask for the company to accommodate her religious practice (the head scarf) in order for the job applicant to be protected by Title VII’s prohibition on the basis of religion. The Court’s opinion may be found here. In Hobbs v. Holt, the Court ruled that prison authorities could not prevent an inmate from growing a beard for religious reasons because doing so violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  The Court’s decision may be found here. Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey.  He is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University, in Radford, Virginia, where he taught constitutional law, American politics, and political philosophy from 1989 to 2010, was Chairman of the  Department of Political Science from 1995 to 2010, and received the Radford University Foundation Award for Creative Scholarship in 2001.  He is also Visiting Lecturer in Politics at Princeton University. Jeffrey Sikkenga is professor of political science at Ashland University, adjunct fellow of the John M. Ashbrook Center and senior fellow in the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy at the University of Virginia. He has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in political thought, the American Founding and American constitutional law. He is deeply interested in the relationship between politics and religion in liberal democracy and America in particular. This Webinar is the second in a series of three on Religion in American History and Politics.  The third will occur March 12, 2016.  David Tucker and Stephen Knott will discuss the views of Jefferson and Hamilton on religion and politics. The post Webinar: Religious Liberty and the Courts appeared first on Teaching American History.

In the year 2000, against strong opposition, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act passed Congress by unanimous vote. It's supporters proclaimed that "God worked a miracle" that day on Capitol Hill. Our guest, John Mauck, was instrumental in crafting the ideas and language that became the Act. He tells us the story of how it became law.Also on the show, Mary Morrison discusses pop music's body image problem Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the year 2000, against strong opposition, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act passed Congress by unanimous vote. It's supporters proclaimed that "God worked a miracle" that day on Capitol Hill. Our guest, John Mauck, was instrumental in crafting the ideas and language that became the Act. He tells us the story of how it became law.Also on the show, our producer-at-large, Natasha S. Alford, reviews the Netflix hit series, Orange is the New Black.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices