Skip to content
Volume 90 - Issue 4

Note: Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education

By Todd R. Olin. Full text here. Since the famous Scopes Trial in 1925, religious groups have struggled to introduce into public school science education a theory of human origin predicated on a supernatural creator. The latest theory to challenge evolution is Intelligent Design. Although this theory makes no explicit reference to religion or God, it…

Continue Reading

Note, Pharmacist Refusals: Dispensing (With) Religious Accomodation Under Title VII

By Amy Bergquist. Full text here. Pharmacists with greater frequency are refusing to fill certain prescriptions on religious grounds. These employees contend that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires pharmacies to accommodate refusing pharmacists by allowing other pharmacists to fill objectionable prescriptions. Some employers embrace this view and accommodate refusing pharmacists by sending customers…

Continue Reading

The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception

By Joseph Raz. Full text here. Why ought we subject our will to authority? How is a person with authority justified in demanding that we subject our will? What does it mean to be a legitimate authority? This is the problem of authority that Professor Raz addressed many years ago under the title of the…

Continue Reading

Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith and Credit, and the Many Societal Actors That Determine What the Constitution Requires

By Mark D. Rosen. Full text here. When Hawaii seemed poised to be the first state in the Union to permit same-sex marriage in the 1990s, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages (or judgments in connection with such marriages) performed in sister states. Though many…

Continue Reading

The Police Power Revisited: Phantom Incorporation and the Roots of the Takings "Muddle"

By Bradley C. Karkkainen. Full text here. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. exposed a deep flaw in regulatory takings doctrine. Lingle rejected the Agins holding that if a regulation does not “substantially advance a legitimate state interest,” it is a compensable taking. That formulation, Lingle said, was based on substantive due process precedents and is better…

Continue Reading