Tessera
Folgen

Nelson Tebbe

@nelsontebbe.bsky.social

10 Posts88 Follower28 Folgt
Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · 2w ago

As Linda Greenhouse writes, St. Mary v Roy is a case asking a fundamental question about religious freedom: “Equality or preference?” She links my article with @nelsontebbe.bsky.social and @richschragger.bsky.social, arguing that the Court is committed to the latter — a doctrine of preference.

Opinion | This Case Has Flown Under the Radar. It Won’t Stay There.

This case has flown under the radar, but it won’t stay there.

nytimes.com

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · 6mo ago

There’s about to be lots of doctrinal analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s 10 Commandments case. But the outcome was easily predictable, for reasons that @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social laid out in our paper on Reestablishing Religion: lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv....

Reestablishing Religion | The University of Chicago Law Review

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. Now, the government must treat religion equally with respect to providing public benef...

lawreview.uchicago.edu

Lawrence Solum@lsolum.bsky.social · 6mo ago

Tebbe on First Amendment Inversion Nelson Tebbe (Cornell Law School) has posted First Amendment Inversion (Texas Law Review, Vol. 104:509) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: First Amendment politics have inverted in key areas of speech law. Positions previously associated with legal conservatism have…

Tebbe on First Amendment Inversion

Nelson Tebbe (Cornell Law School) has posted First Amendment Inversion (Texas Law Review, Vol. 104:509) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: First Amendment politics have inverted in key areas of speech law. Positions previously associated with legal conservatism have been adopted by liberal ideology, and vice versa. Familiar views have been scrambled not only on the Supreme Court but also in public debate.

legaltheoryblog.com

R
Richard Primus@richardprimus.bsky.social · 8mo ago

University of Michigan: On Friday, come participate in a day-long conference discussing/criticizing my new book *The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power.* With Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Maggie Blackhawk (NYU), Sam Erman (Michigan), Jonathan Gienapp (Stanford)… (1/4)

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · 10mo ago

The Supreme Court signaling that Mahmoud may extend beyond curricular opt-outs. We anticipated this move in the vaccine context in our recent comment, @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13....

Bild
Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · 10mo ago

The Supreme Court just set aside a 2nd Circuit decision upholding New York's requirement that all school students, public and private, obtain certain vaccinations, without any religious exemptions. It orders the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the ruling in light of SCOTUS' LGBTQ school books decision.

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION 25-133 MILLER, JOSEPH, ET AL. V. McDONALD, COMM'R, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U. S. 522 (2025).
Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · 11mo ago

The Supreme Court had three religious freedom cases last Term. With @richschragger.bsky.social and @nelsontebbe.bsky.social, our latest comments on them, extending our analysis of religious preferentialism under the First Amendment. harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...

The Structure of Religious Preference - Harvard Law Review

A revolution has occurred in the law of religious freedom. At this point, the picture is reasonably clear. The Supreme Court has greatly expanded the scope of the Free Exercise Clause.

harvardlawreview.org

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · last yr.

Also exceedingly rare for a court to cite Schragger, Schwartzman, and Tebbe, but lo and behold.

Mark Joseph Stern@mjsdc.bsky.social · last yr.

Check out Justice Eddins’ complete repudiation of the Roberts Court here. It’s worth reading in full. It’s quite brave—and exceedingly rare—for a sitting judge to speak so candidly and scathingly about SCOTUS’ partisan contortions of law, history, and fact. www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/u...

The Supreme Court devalues democracy. Thirty-seven state constitutions block public funds from supporting religious entities. Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe, Reestablishing Religion, 92 U. Chi. L. Rev. 199, 211 (2025) . The Court aims to federally-repeal these state constitutional provisions. The Court's beliefs meddle with local and state governments. Forcing states to send public funds to religious entities federalizes public policy. By unprincipled fiat. See also New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (zero to superpower). Taxpayer funds now flow to religious institutions. So, the government collects money from nonbelievers (under the threat of jail), and uses some of it to support religion. And since not all religions will receive public funds, the government forces minority faiths to support other faiths, or else. The Court twists text, history, purpose, precedent, and public meaning to offend the First Amendment's character-of- government structure and the Constitution's separate sovereignty structure. As it steamrolls both, the Court says nothing about church- state separation and federalism principles. The Court's nevermind stance to the structural features of the Constitution "has unfolded with little engagement with, and occasional
Nelson Tebbe@nelsontebbe.bsky.social · 2y ago

In this brief in Mahmoud, Larry Sager and I argue that Tandon, property understood, requires equal value toward religious groups. Nothing in Mahmoud indicates devaluing, all things considered. Outstanding work by Becca Hansen, Rachel Miller-Ziegler, and Helen White of Munger Tolles.

supremecourt.gov

Nelson Tebbe@nelsontebbe.bsky.social · 2y ago

Here's our amicus brief in Drummond, where the Court is considering whether Oklahoma must fund a religious charter school. Our distinctive argument is that the answer is no, regardless of whether the school is public or private. Thanks to Marty Lederman for drafting, and to Don Verrilli as counsel.

supremecourt.gov

Micah Schwartzman@micahschwartzman.bsky.social · 2y ago

For the political economy of this case, and predictions about it, I’m (again, I know) re-upping my article, Reestablishing Religion, with @nelsontebbe.bsky.social and @richschragger.bsky.social: lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv...

Supreme Court to Hear Oklahoma Religious Charter School Case

The proposal to create the nation’s first religious charter school paid for by taxpayer funds could move the line between church and state in education.

nytimes.com