Subscribe to RSS - Amicus

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Management Program awards competitive grants to qualifying organizations to purchase recycled tire rubber, which is used to resurface playgrounds. In order to comply with the No-Aid Clause of the Missouri Constitution, the program does not award grants to organizations owned or operated by “a church, sect, or denomination of religions.”
 

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

In 2012, a same-sex couple asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a cake for their wedding. The bakery's owner refused, citing his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The couple then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state’s public accommodations law, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Medina v. Catholic Health Initiatives

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act regulates employee-benefit plans to protect the interests of employees who participate in the plans. To avoid undue governmental intrusion in church affairs, the Act provides an exemption for plans established by churches. Some non-church entities have begun to claim this exemption.

United States v. Sterling

Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling defied her superior officers on multiple occasions. She refused to report to duty when ordered and refused to wear the required uniform. She also posted signs in her public workspace, where other Marines routinely came to receive support services, which stated: "No weapon formed against me shall prosper." When her supervisor ordered her to remove the signs, LCpl Sterling refused--twice--causing her superior officer to take the signs down herself. 

Advocate Healthcare Network and Subsidiaries v. Stapleton

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employee-benefit plans to protect the interests of employees who participate in these plans. To avoid undue governmental intrusion in church affairs, the Act provides an exemption for plans established by churches. Some non-church entities have begun to claim this exemption.

Dignity Health v. Rollins

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employee-benefit plans to protect the interests of employees who participate in these plans. To avoid undue governmental intrusion in church affairs, the Act provides an exemption for plans established by churches. Some non-church entities have begun to claim this exemption.

St. Peter's Healthcare System v. Kaplan

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates employee-benefit plans to protect the interests of employees who participate in the plans. To avoid undue governmental intrusion in church affairs, the Act provides an exemption for plans established by churches. Some non-church entities have begun to claim this exemption.

Lund v. Rowan County

The Rowan County Board of Commissioners opens its public meetings with an invocation given by one of the Commissioners. Ninety-seven percent of these invocations are explicitly Christian, and Commissioners direct the audience to participate in the prayers. The Commissioners have made statements suggesting that the County views non-Christian beliefs with disfavor, and they have created an atmosphere that led to the harassment of religious minorities at Board meetings.

Bormuth v. County of Jackson

The Jackson County Board of Commissioners opens its public meetings with an invocation delivered by one of its nine Commissioners. The Commissioners—all of whom are Christian—deliver Christian prayers, often in the name of Jesus Christ, and do not allow members of other faiths to lead the prayer. Citizens who attend the meetings in order to petition the Commissioners have little choice but to participate, even if doing so violates their conscience.

Waters v. Ricketts

In November 2014, several same-sex couples challenged the Nebraska laws that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. In March 2015, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, finding it likely that plaintiffs would prevail on their claim that Nebraska’s marriage laws violated the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection.

Pages