1. A conglomeration of supporters and opponents of charitable choice have agreed to a statement of what issues are resolved and what are in dispute. They list the preemption issue as disputed. See Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Agreed Statement of Current Law on Employment Practices, Faith-Based Organizations, and Government Funding, § 10.2, at 10 (2003) (available at http://www.working-group.org/Documents/StatementOnCurrentLaw.pdf)Google Scholar.

2. See Lupu, Ira C. & Tuttle, Robert W., Government Relationships with Faith-Based Providers: The State of the Law, 49 (2002) (available at http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/legal/reports/10-23-2002_state_of_the_law.pdf)Google Scholar. For an article-length treatment of the issue, see McClellan, Melissa, Note: Faith and Federalism: Do Charitable Choice Provisions Preempt State Nondiscrimination Employment Laws?, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1437 (2004)Google Scholar.

3. See Working Group on Human Needs, supra n. 1, § 5.1, at 6 (labeling it also as “in dispute”). One court has already ruled against such a broad interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. See Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999).