No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 August 2016
High-profile cases in the Supreme Court of the United States (‘SCOTUS’) on religion tend to attract a certain amount of academic comment in the United Kingdom but US judgments are cited only infrequently by the superior courts in the UK. In return, SCOTUS rarely cites foreign judgments at all. The reason, it is suggested, is that the effect given by the First Amendment to the US Constitution is to render US case law of less relevance to the UK than, for example, judgments from jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia.
2 Exmoor Coast Boat Cruises Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 1103 (TC).
3 The exemption in Regulation 25A, Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 as amended.
4 Blackburn & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 525 (TC).
5 F Cranmer, ‘Can a commercial company have “beliefs”? Exmoor Coast Boat Cruises Ltd v Revenue & Customs’, Law & Religion UK, 22 December 2014, <http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/12/22/can-a-commercial-company-have-beliefs-exmoor-coast-boat-cruises-ltd-v-revenue-customs/>, accessed 23 March 2016.
6 Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc 573 US __ (2014).
7 Codified in 42 US Code Ch 21B (Religious Freedom Restoration).
8 Codified as 42 US Code Ch 21C §§ 2000cc–2000cc–5.
9 City of Boerne v Flores 521 US 507 (1997).
10 US Code Ch 21C § 2000cc–5 (Definitions).
11 Hobby Lobby, per Alito J, 18 (in the slip opinion).
12 Exmoor [71 & 72].
13 Pine Valley Developments Ltd & Ors v Ireland [1991] ECHR 55.
14 Darby v Sweden [1989] ECommHR No 11581/85.
15 Ibid at para 45.
16 See Loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l'État.
17 Loi n°59-1557 du 31 décembre 1959 sur les rapports entre l'État et les établissements d'enseignement privés.
18 See Titre IV: les établissements d'enseignement privés. Chapitre II section 3: contrat d'association à l'enseignement public passé avec l'Etat par des établissements d'enseignement privés.
19 R Adhar and I Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State, second edition (Oxford, 2013).
20 P Edge, Religion and Law: an introduction (Aldershot, 2006), pp 68–72, 81, 118–122, 129–131.
21 United States v Kuch 288 F Supp 439 (DDC 1968).
22 R Sandberg, Law and Religion (Cambridge, 2011), pp 46–47.
23 Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee [1982] UKHL 7.
24 King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531.
25 A (Children), Re [2000] EWCA Civ 254.
26 Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health 497 US 261 (1990).
27 Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital (1914) 105 NE 92.
28 United States v Holmes 26 Fed Cas 360 (1842).
29 Auckland Area Health Board v Attorney-General [1993] 1 NZLR 235.
30 Perka v The Queen 13 DLR (4th) 1.
31 R v Walker (1973) 48 CCC (2d) 126.
32 Morgentaler v The Queen [1976] 1 SCR 616.
33 Nancy B v Hôtel-Dieu de Québec (1992) 86 DLR (4th) 385.
34 Pretty v DPP and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 61.
35 Rodriguez v Attorney-General of Canada [1993] 3 SCR 519.
36 Vacco v Quill (1997) 521 US 793.
37 Washington v Glucksberg (1997) 521 US 702.
38 Nyambirai v National Social Security Authority [1996] 1 LRC 64.
39 R (ProLife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation [2003] UKHL 23.
40 Federal Communications Commission v Pacifica Foundation (1978) 438 US 726.
41 Becker v Federal Communications Commission (1996) 95 F 3d75.
42 R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment & Ors [2005] UKHL 15.
43 Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT4/00) [2000] ZACC 11.
44 Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 932.
45 Re Ontario Human Rights Commission v Simpson-Sears Limited (1985) 23 DLR (4th) 321.
46 Alberta Human Rights Commission v Central Alberta Dairy Pool; Canadian Human Rights Commission et al, Interveners (1990) 72 DLR 417.
47 R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15.
48 Multani v Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] SCC 6.
49 Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor (Scotland) [2008] UKHL 62.
50 Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488.
51 R v S (RD) [1997] 3 SCR 484.
52 P & Ors, Re (Northern Ireland) [2008] UKHL 38.
53 Du Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development [2002] ZACC 20.
54 R (Baiai & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53.
55 Loving et ux. v Virginia 388 US 1 (1967).
56 Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie & Anor [2005] ZACC 19.
57 Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357.
58 R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45.
59 Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG) [1993] 3 SCR 519.
60 R (E) v Governing Body of JFS & Anor [2009] UKSC 15.
61 Bob Jones University v United States 461 US 574 (1983).
62 No'ar K'halacha v Ministry of Education HCJ 1067/08 (unreported) 6 August 2009.
63 Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80.
64 Griggs v Duke Power Co 401 US 424 (1971).
65 Maga v Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256.
66 Bazley v Currie (1999) 174 DLR (4th) 45.
67 Jacobi v Griffiths (1999) 174 DLR (4th) 71.
68 O'Keefe v Hickey [2008] IESC 72.
69 Catholic Child Welfare Society & Ors v Various Claimants [2012] UKSC 56.
70 Doe v Bennett [2004] 1 SCR 436.
71 Blackwater v Plint (2005) SCC 58.
72 New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4.
73 JGE v The Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 938.
74 Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd [1947] 1 DLR 161.
75 Bull & Anor v Hall & Anor [2013] UKSC 73.
76 National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice 1999 (1) SA 6.
77 R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77.
78 Malnak v Yogi 592 F 2d 197 (1979).
79 Church of the New Faith v Comr of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR 136.
80 Mba v London Borough of Merton [2013] EWCA Civ 1562.
81 Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 SCR 551.
82 Shergill & Ors v Khaira & Ors [2014] UKSC 33.
83 Underhill v Hernandez (1897) 168 US 250.
84 Bruker v Marcovitz [2007] 3 SCR 607.
85 R (Nicklinson & Anor) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v DPP [2014] UKSC 38.
86 Carter v Canada (AG) [2012] BCSC 886.
87 Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39.
88 R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103.
89 Ross v Lord Advocate [2016] ScotCS CSIH 12.
90 Carter v Canada (AG) 2015 SCC 5.
91 Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice [2015] ZAGPPHC 230.
92 Lawrence v Texas 539 US 558 (2003).
93 Dudgeon v United Kingdom [1981] ECHR 5.
94 R Posner, ‘No thanks, we already have our own laws: the court should never view a foreign legal decision as a precedent in any way’, (July/August 2004) Legal Affairs, <http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2004/feature_posner_julaug04.msp>, accessed 7 June 2016. He developed the argument further in ‘Foreword: a political court’, (2005) 119 Harvard Law Review 28–102 Google Scholar at 84–90.
95 Parrish, A, ‘Storm in a teacup: the US Supreme Court's use of foreign law’, (2007) 2 University of Illinois Law Review 637–680 at 680Google Scholar.
96 He then went on at length to explain why: Seipp, D, ‘Our law, their law, history, and the citation of foreign law’, (2006) 86 Boston University Law Review 1417–1446 at 1417Google Scholar.
97 United States v Windsor 570 US __ (2013), in which the Court held by 5–4 that the restriction to heterosexual unions of the federal interpretation of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ imposed by section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act 1996 was a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
98 Town of Greece v Galloway 572 __ US (2014), in which the Court held by 5–4 that the practice of opening meetings of the town board with prayer by volunteer chaplains did not violate the Establishment Clause.
99 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 565 US __ (2012), on the ‘ministerial exception’: the right of religious organisations to discriminate in employment.
100 Obergefell v Hodges 576 US __ (2015), in which the Court held by 5–4 that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though ‘religion’ was certainly not the presenting issue, same-sex marriage has huge theological and ecclesiological implications for religious bodies.
101 Scalia, A and Breyer, S, ‘A conversation between U.S. Supreme Court justices’, (2005) 3:4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 519–541 Google Scholar at 525. See also Scalia J's dissent in Roper v Simmons 543 US 2005 at paras 16–23.
102 Scalia and Breyer, ‘Conversation’, p 524.
103 Conversely, though the UK domestic courts and the ECtHR occasionally rule on accommodating prisoners’ religious beliefs, it is difficult to imagine that we could ever have the seemingly endless procession of prisoner free-exercise cases that are such a feature of First Amendment jurisprudence.
104 Criminal law in Louisiana largely rests on Anglo-American common law but its private law is still based on the French and Spanish civilian codes in operation prior to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
105 R (National Secular Society & Anor) v Bideford Town Council [2012] EWHC (Admin) 175.
106 Buscarini v San Marino [1999] ECHR 7.
107 Lautsi v Italy [2011] ECHR 2412.
108 Galloway v Town of Greece 732 F Supp 2d 195 (2010).
109 Methodist Conference v Preston [2013] UKSC 29.
110 R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295, 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC).
111 Ibid at para 105. But that is not so for Canadian judgments generally: ‘when all cases are considered, statistics show that the Supreme Court of Canada has cited American case law almost forty times as often as the Supreme Court of the United States has cited Canadian case law’: Law Library of Congress, The Impact of Foreign Law on Domestic Judgments (Washington, DC, 2010), p 23, available at <https://www.loc.gov/law/help/domestic-judgment/impact-of-foreign-law.pdf>, accessed 22 February 2016.
112 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, s 15.
113 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, s 36.
114 A view supported by a recent analysis of citations in the judgments of the UKSC on human rights issues: for the period from its foundation to 2014 there were 14 US citations in total: Hélène Tyrrell, ‘The use of foreign jurisprudence in human rights cases before the UK Supreme Court’, unpublished PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London, 2014.
115 Hazard, G, ‘The Supreme Court as a legislature’, (1978) 64 Cornell Law Review 1–27 Google Scholar.
116 DeGirolami, M, ‘Constitutional contraction: religion and the Roberts Court’, (2015) 26 Stanford Law & Policy Review 385–409 at 387Google Scholar. Presumably his article was written before Obergefell, in which Roberts CJ, Scalia, Thomas and Alito JJ all wrote individual dissenting opinions.