SCOTUS religion cases 'flying under the radar' involve beards, signs and passports
The U.S. Supreme Court will be considering three more cases involving religion this term after two high-profile decisions on religious issues.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court upheld mostly Christian prayers before government meetings and ruled that closely held companies don’t have to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives if their owners have religious objections. In contrast with those well-known decisions, this term’s religious cases “are flying under the radar,” USA Today reports.
The story summarizes the three cases and the issues. They are:
• The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether an Arkansas prisoner has a religious right to keep his beard. The prisoner, Gregory Holt, also uses the name Abdul Maalik Muhammad. The Supreme Court granted cert in March based on Holt’s handwritten cert petition. The issue before the court is whether Holt has a right to the beard under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case, Holt v. Hobbs, will be argued on Oct. 7.
• In 2012, the U.S .Supreme Court ruled that the courts have the authority to determine whether a man born in Jerusalem— a city claimed by Israelis and Palestinians—can list Israel as his birthplace on his passport. A federal law allows Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace, but the Obama administration argues that only presidents have the power to set passport policy as part of their foreign affairs responsibilities. Under U.S. policy, only the word “Jerusalem” is listed. The case is back before the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled for the president, saying the law “runs headlong into a carefully calibrated and long-standing executive branch policy of neutrality toward Jerusalem.” The case is Zivotofsky v. Kerry.
• The Supreme Court will hear a First Amendment challenge to a sign ordinance by the Good News Presbyterian Church in Gilbert, Arizona. The church says the town treats temporary signs directing parishioners to the sites of its church services worse than signs promoting political and ideological messages. The case is Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
Hat tip to How Appealing.
