Did Louisville actually purport to ban drive-in church services, or was it just asking people to voluntarily refrain? And what notice did the City have about the temporary restraining order request?
Plus: Signal will leave the U.S. market if EARN IT passes, Justin Amash blasts Michigan shutdown orders, and more...
If people are allowed to go to bars, restaurants, libraries, schools, and factories (with suitable social distancing), should they also be allowed to go to church?
A federal judge blocks the Louisville ban on drive-in church services.
A "drafting snafu" with the Legislature's concurring resolution, which endorsed the Governor's initial emergency order, is casting many things in doubt.
That violates the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and probably the freedom of assembly and association.
The annual retelling of the Exodus story reminds us not to take freedom for granted.
My guess is that these are quite unusual, but still noteworthy.
Religious liberty, public health, and the police powers of the states
I'll say it again: "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."
... for violating New York City ban on gatherings of 50 people or more.
The restrictions are less dangerous precisely because they are so broad and onerous.
An interesting site, run out of the University of Pisa, covering breaking developments in many countries with many articles in English.
The Illinois Appellate Court's decision interprets the Illinois version of the RFRA, and the separate Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (which bans all discrimination "because of [a] person's conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience").
The prison's actions satisfied the strict scrutiny test, a federal court just held, so the inmate loses.
State lawmakers want to override local zoning codes to let churches and other nonprofits build affordable housing on their own land.
Trump's failure to speak out against Modi's reign of lawlessness and terror is an epic abdication of responsibility.
The Supreme Court is about to tackle the issue.
The Supreme Court will decide whether three Muslims who refused to be informants can sue for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
They want to scrap the citizenship rights of Indian Muslims because America helped Soviet Jews and Christians.
The Chinese Communist Party confiscated a sacred meteorite from Muslim herders. They're suing to get it back.
The courts may not strike it down. But it remains both illegal and deeply unjust.
How can prosecuting a black woman for slapping Jews in 2020 be authorized by the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery in 1865?
Conservatives want courts to consider the governments' bigoted motives in enacting anti-Catholic Blaine amendments, but not when it comes to Trump's travel ban. Liberals tend to be inconsistent in the opposite way.
What’s at stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Prof. Michael Helfand (Pepperdine), a leading expert on religious arbitration, passes this along.
Narendra Modi relies on private militants allied with his party to crack down on dissent.
Hate crime data suggest that claim is overblown.
No, says the trial court, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agrees.
A response to a query of mine, from David Hodges of the Institute for Justice (who are plaintiff's lawyers).
An interesting analysis from Prof. Mark Movsesian (St. John's).
"It would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for the Court to order the Wife to participate in a religious ritual when she did not agree to do so nor may the Court impose a financial penalty against her."
The pioneering psychedelic researcher, Timothy Leary collaborator, and New Age seeker exemplified America's postwar turn to individualism.
A crime in Monsey leads to a redundant prosecution that hinges on the defendant's anti-Semitism.
His brutal response to the protests against his anti-Muslim initiative reveal him as a Hindu nationalist, not a reformer.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks