[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf

上传人:任我行 文档编号:28313 上传时间:2022-06-24 发布时间:2019-06-21 格式:PDF 页数:6 大小:654.80KB
下载 相关 举报
[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共6页
[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共6页
[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共6页
[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共6页
[20190621]LSB10315_没有柠檬定律了?最高法院反思宗教机构分析.pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共6页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述

1、CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal SidebarLegal Sidebari i No More Lemon Law? Supreme Court Rethinks Religious Establishment Analysis June 21, 2019 The Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of public monuments involving crosses and other religious sym

2、bols when it issued its decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association on June 20, 2019. Seven Justices agreed that the Bladensburg Peace Cross does not violate the First Amendments Establishment Clause. But several separate opinions revealed divisions among the Justices on how to appr

3、oach religious establishment claimsand more generally, disagreements about the proper role of sectarian religious displays in public life. As discussed in more detail in this previous Sidebar, American Legion presented the Court with the opportunity to fundamentally rethink its Establishment Clause

4、jurisprudence. While a majority of Justices appear to have abandoned a prior approach known as the Lemon test, at least in the context of government use of religious symbols, there was no single majority opinion agreeing on what test should apply in future Establishment Clause claims. The decision t

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索
资源标签

当前位置:首页 > 法规条令 > CRS 美国国会研究处报告