No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
1. (Oxford U. Press 1986).
2. 472 U.S. 3,91-114 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
3. 515 U.S. 819, 852-868 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring), 868-872 (Souter, J., dissenting).
4. Id. at 853-854.
5. Id. 872-873; Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 899 (2000) (Souter, J., dissenting).
6. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 872 n. 1; Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 899. Concurring Justices Breyer and O'Connor do not share the plurality's view of neutrality as nearly sufficient for constitutionality. See Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 837-839. In the most recent school prayer case, the accommodationist or religious choice school of thought has not prevailed. See Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
7. See Mitchell, 530 U.S. at 871, 899 (Souter, J., dissenting).
8. See discussion of case in id. at 813.
9. Id. at 879-882.
10. See McConnell, Michael W., The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1418 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11. Supra n. 5.
12. 494 U.S. 872 (1990).