Should truth in advertising law apply to religious claims? It's a live issue in Africa, where governments could learn from American experience.
U.S. Supreme Court
Most DACA recipients have family ties, school and work histories, and future plans that start and end here. But they have only a fragile legal footing.
In the recent U.S. Supreme Court hearings on whether states have a constitutional right to ban (or refuse to recognize) same-sex marriages, the conservative justices seemed to be preoccupied with the definition of marriage. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, in response to advocate Mary Bonauto, “Every definition that I looked up prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as a unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable.” Whereas this and similar comments made during the hearing are perhaps true on their surface—marriage in the past has not been defined as a relationship between same-sex couples—such comments are misleading, suggesting that the definition of marriage has been unchanged “for millennia,” or disingenuous.
The ACA is no longer just an idea. It is how millions of people access health care—and the Supreme Court stands poised to gut it.
“Many religious liberty accommodations will have absolutely no effect on the rights of third parties. Those are easier cases.”
Eroding campaign finance rules gives wealthy donors more power. It may also generate cynicism and political disengagement.
The RFRA is a good law. But it wasn’t designed to grant religious rights to businesses—or to let people impose their beliefs on others.