Religious Freedom, Realism, and Constitution-Making

Andrea Pin is full professor of comparative public law, University of Padua, and senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Emory University.

Syria, Constitution-Making, and Frustration in the Middle East and North Africa

The debate over Syria’s new constitution is the latest iteration of several efforts to pacify the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region while securing the rule of law and human rights. The twenty-first century is marked by an impressively long series of constitutional documents that have attempted to pursue these goals, with precarious or even disappointing results.

(more…)

Continue Reading Religious Freedom, Realism, and Constitution-Making

Border Disputes: Religious Adjudication Along the Private-Public Nexus

Ori Aronson is an associate professor of law and the deputy director of the Menomadin Center for Jewish and Democratic Law at the Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law.

In 2017, Israel’s Supreme Court was asked to decide a peculiar question: could a state court tell a religious community to shun one of its members? The case involved a husband who refused to grant his wife a Jewish religious divorce, a gett. Under Orthodox Jewish law, without her husband’s consent the woman could not remarry or have children who would be recognized as legitimate. Israeli law, by giving exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish marriage and divorce to rabbinical courts, effectively entrenches this discriminatory rule. To mitigate its harshest consequences, state rabbinical courts have long been empowered to impose coercive civil sanctions, executed by the state’s enforcement apparatus: freezing assets, revoking drivers’ licenses, even jailing recalcitrant husbands. But these powers do not always work. In some ultra-Orthodox communities, social shame matters more than loss of liberty. So rabbinical judges began invoking traditional sanctions from medieval Jewish law—calling on neighbors to ostracize the stubborn husband until he relented.

(more…)

Continue Reading Border Disputes: Religious Adjudication Along the Private-Public Nexus

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Even When the Current Supreme Court Gets It Right the Supermajority’s Bias Is on Display

Frank S. Ravitch is Professor of Law and Walter H. Stowers Chair in Law and Religion at the Michigan State University College of Law.

On 27 June 2025, the United States Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor.[1] The case focused on the Montgomery County (Maryland) School Board’s integration of books featuring LGBTQ characters into the elementary-school English curriculum. The board had long integrated books with characters from a variety of backgrounds, including different religious and cultural backgrounds, into its curriculum. The goal of including books with LGBTQ characters was to be inclusive because the district is one of the most culturally, socially, racially, and religiously diverse districts in the United States.

(more…)

Continue Reading Mahmoud v. Taylor: Even When the Current Supreme Court Gets It Right the Supermajority’s Bias Is on Display