CLS Center Urges High Court to Take Scout Freedom Case
On Thursday, February 5, 2004 the Center filed a “friend of the Court” brief in Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman, a case
involving Connecticut’s exclusion of the Scouts from its state employee charitable campaign.
The Scouts had participated in the Connecticut campaign for over 30 years. In recent years, over 900 different
organizations, including homosexual advocacy groups, took part in the campaign. Connecticut claimed it would violate
state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it allowed the Boy Scouts to participate in
the campaign.
In its brief, the CLS Center urges the United States Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit decision rejecting the
Scouts’ claim that the state had improperly penalized it for exercising its First Amendment right to choose its leaders.
This case could have important ramifications for the right of religious organizations to choose their leaders free from
government interference.
CLS Amicus Brief
CLS Center Advocates Strong Interpretation of Federal Religious Freedom Law
On Friday, February 6, 2004, the Center filed a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, a case involving the interpretation of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The United States threatened to prosecute members of a small religious sect known as UDV for their importation and use
of hoasca, a substance used in the sect’s religious rituals. Hoasca contains DMT, a federally controlled substance. UDV
filed suit, claiming that application of certain provisions of controlled substance legislation would violate their
religious liberty, guaranteed by RFRA. The District Court ruled in UDV’s favor, and a panel of the Tenth Circuit
affirmed. The government is now seeking rehearing en banc.
The Center’s brief addresses two important questions. First, does the government or the religious claimant bear the
heavier burden of proof when a court is deciding whether it will grant a preliminary injunction under RFRA? Second, how
strong must the government's interest be in a specific situation such that its burden on religious exercise is justified?
At stake in this case is the degree to which RFRA will protect religious exercise from the federal government.
CLS Amicus Brief
House Votes to Maintain Autonomy of Faith-Based Organizations
On Wednesday, February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an effort to eliminate statutory protection
of the religious freedom of faith-based organizations participating in a federally funded social service program.
Through the Community Services Block Grant Act, community agencies and organizations, including faith-based
organizations, receive federal funds to provide social services to low-income individuals. A 1998 amendment to the
original act signed by President Clinton expressly permitted faith-based providers to use religion as a selection
criteria when hiring employees.
During the reauthorization process, opponents of the faith-based initiative attempted to eliminate the statutory
protection of CSBG service providers’ religious freedom. The House rejected this effort, thereby allowing providers to
maintain their hiring practices while continuing to receive federal funds.
Back To Top
