Abstract: Real property disputes between units or members of the same church are common in the United States. To resolve such disputes, the Supreme Court has endorsed two doctrines: the hierarchical deference approach and the neutral-principles of law approach. The Court has justified both doctrines on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but this justification is problematic. Specifically, under the hierarchical deference approach courts must always give preferential treatment to one religious group over others—effectively endorsing a particular religion. On the other hand, courts can enforce their own interpretations of religious issues under the neutral-principles approach, thereby infringing free exercise of religious beliefs. And because Washington State courts use both approaches, they also use a flawed jurisprudence. To cure these defects, this Comment proposes that Washington State courts should treat church property disputes the way they treat property disputes from secular nonprofits or fraternity organizations. This streamlined treatment conforms to existing statutes and to Washington State Supreme Court precedent. In sum, removing the First Amendment’s role is a simple and effective way for Washington State courts to resolve church property disputes without violating the federal Constitution.
Abstract: In 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion with the potential to constrict the standing doctrine. TransUnion v. Ramirez appeared to alter standing’s “concrete harm” requirement, which would…
Read More
Abstract: Over 150 years ago, the federal government signed a treaty promising the Navajo people a permanent home within the bounds of their ancestral homeland. To this day, that promise…
Read More
Abstract: Individuals with disabilities are continuously marginalized by a world tailored to the able-bodied. One of the most visible areas where this marginalization manifests is employment. The Americans with Disabilities…
Read More