Cases

United States v. Williams

Because Williams’s chat room postings about child pornography for barter fit the characteristics of commercial speech, they should be held to such standards.

Read More

M.A.L. v. Kinsland

The District Court’s decision should be affirmed because it will not lead to confusing and complex legal rules and it comports with controlling Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, the District Court’s decision should be affirmed because the decisions of other courts that have applied forum analysis to student free speech ignore the plain language of Tinker. Finally, the District Court’s decision should be affirmed because in addition to the fact that most of the cases appellants cite are bad law under Tinker, several of them are also inapposite.

Read More

Chambers v. Ormiston

The certified question of law presented to the Supreme Court is: “Whether or not the Family Court may properly recognize, for the purpose of entertaining a divorce petition, the
marriage of two persons of the same sex who were purportedly married in another state.”

Read More

Sephardic Congregation v. Town of Rampo

Rabbi Hankakian meets the officiating clergy requirement of Real Property Tax Law §462 because securing additional full-time outside employment does not prevent a clergyman from being able to fulfill his full-time duties in ministry and a church leader who works full-time as a clergyman and secures outside employment cannot be barred from receiving a tax exemption.

Read More

Gillard v. Kuykendall

The District Court should be reversed because requiring Appellant to clean his cell on Saturday constitutes a substantial burden on his religious exercise by forcing him to violate the Sabbath. The District Court should be reversed because requiring Appellant to violate the Sabbath is unreasonable under the Turner analysis.

Read More

Weinbaum v. City of LasCruces

This case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Establishment Clause claims are not properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. the city seal should be evaluated and upheld under Marsh v. Chambers because it falls within two practices that are “deeply-rooted in our history and tradition.” the Las Cruces seal does not violate the Establishment Clause because the crosses in the design fall short of establishing a religion.

Read More

Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School District

This case should be remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction because Establishment Clause claims are not properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court should apply Marsh v. Chambers because its establishment clause principles are applicable in a wide variety of situations, including the instant case of school board prayers. The school board prayers should be upheld because they are not an unconstitutional form of proselytizing.

Read More
Scroll to Top