In the Supreme Court of the United States, Sharonell Fulton, and others, petitioners, v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and others, respondents : on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit : brief amici curiae of Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee in support of the petitioners / Richard M. Esenberg, counsel of record, Anthony F. LoCoco, counsel for amici.
Esenberg, Richard M., author.; LoCoco, Anthony F., author.; Fulton, Sharonell, petitioner.; Listecki, Jerome, 1949- amicus curiae.; Philadelphia (Pa.), respondent.; Catholic Church. Archdiocese of Milwaukee (Wis.), amicus curiae.; United States. Supreme Court.; United States. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit)
2020
Formats
Format | |
---|---|
BibTeX | |
MARCXML | |
TextMARC | |
MARC | |
DublinCore | |
EndNote | |
NLM | |
RefWorks | |
RIS |
Items
Details
Title
In the Supreme Court of the United States, Sharonell Fulton, and others, petitioners, v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and others, respondents : on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit : brief amici curiae of Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee in support of the petitioners / Richard M. Esenberg, counsel of record, Anthony F. LoCoco, counsel for amici.
Added Author
Added Corporate Author
Variant Title
HeinOnline index title: Brief amici curiae of Archbishop Jerome E. Listecki and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Imprint
[United States] : [publisher not identified], [2020]
Distributed
[Getzville, New York] : William S. Hein & Company, [2021]
Description
1 online resource (vi, 33 pages).
Series
Religion and the law.
LGBTQ+ rights.
LGBTQ+ rights.
Summary
At issue is whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim - namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views - as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held; (2) whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited; and (3) whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs.
Note
"No. 19-123."
"June 3, 2020"--Page 33.
"June 3, 2020"--Page 33.
Bibliography, etc. Note
"Table of authorities": Pages iii-vi.
Source of Description
Description based on PDF title page, viewed July 15, 2021.
Location
www
Linked Resources
Alternate Title
HeinOnline.
Language
English
Record Appears in