|
2007-2008 Supreme Court Term
|
|
|
|
|
Petitions Filed
|
|
|
|
Freedom of Religion
|
|
|
|
Petitions for Review (pending cases) |
|
|
Aguayo v. Geren
|
|
|
|
|
Whether the military may apply a stricter standard to agnostic applicants for conscientious objector status than to religious applicants. |
|
|
|
|
St. John’s United Church of Christ, et al. v. Chicago, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
Whether Chicago violated the Free Exercise Clause by, in efforts to expand O’Hare International Airport, seeking to amend state law to exempt religious cemeteries surrounding the airport from the Illinois Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. |
|
|
|
|
The Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc., et al. v. City of Long Branch, New Jersey
|
|
|
|
|
Whether, under the First Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, municipalities may exclude religious groups from particular zones while allowing some secular groups. |
|
|
|
|
Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria
|
|
|
|
|
Whether in an age-discrimination suit by the former music director and organist of a Catholic diocese, the matter was properly dismissed based on the rule that federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over the internal affairs of religious associations. |
|
|
|
|
Review Denied |
|
|
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany, et al. v. Dinallo
|
|
|
|
|
Whether New York's Women's Health and Wellness Act (WHWA) violates the First Amendment rights of religious organizations by forcing them to include contraceptives in the prescription drug coverage provided by their insurance plans. |
|
|
|
|
Faith Center Church v. Glover
|
|
|
|
|
Whether public libraries can block religious groups like the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries from worshipping in public meeting rooms. |
|
|
|
|
Teen Ranch, et al., v. Udow, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
Whether the 6th Circuit was wrong to rule "that a state official can require a faith-based provider of social services, which is not a seminary, to forfeit its religious beliefs and practices before it can participate in a government program, when the applicable state and federal legislation have expressed a directly opposite intent;" and, whether the 6th Circuit erred in holding "that an individual's right to veto a religious placement, and thus be assured a secular placement, is not sufficient to make placement a private choice for Establishment Clause purposes." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous capture