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: 24 April 2015
1. A conglomeration of supporters and opponents of charitable choice have agreed to a statement of what issues are resolved and what are in dispute. They list the preemption issue as disputed. See Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Agreed Statement of Current Law on Employment Practices, Faith-Based Organizations, and Government Funding, § 10.2, at 10 (2003) (available at http://www.working-group.org/Documents/StatementOnCurrentLaw.pdf)Google Scholar.
2. See Lupu, Ira C. & Tuttle, Robert W., Government Relationships with Faith-Based Providers: The State of the Law, 49 (2002) (available at http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/legal/reports/10-23-2002_state_of_the_law.pdf)Google Scholar. For an article-length treatment of the issue, see McClellan, Melissa, Note: Faith and Federalism: Do Charitable Choice Provisions Preempt State Nondiscrimination Employment Laws?, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1437 (2004)Google Scholar.
3. See Working Group on Human Needs, supra n. 1, § 5.1, at 6 (labeling it also as “in dispute”). One court has already ruled against such a broad interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. See Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 40 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 1999).