Tuesday, November 13th, 2018

Press Advisory: Columbia Law Professor Files Amicus Briefs on Religious Liberty Claims Raised in Federal Prosecutions of Activists in Arizona Who Left Water and Food In Desert For Migrants

Media Contact:
Elizabeth Boylan, eboyla@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0167

Access PDFs of the Amicus Briefs, here:
Amicus brief in United States of America vs. Caitlin Persis Deighan, et al.

Amicus brief in United States of America vs. Natalee Renee Hoffman, et al.

* * * * *

On November 13th, Katherine Franke, Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Columbia University, submitted amicus briefs on behalf of seven scholars of religious liberty law in two cases in which the federal government is prosecuting members of the Tucson-based group No More Deaths/No Más Muertes. The defendants are migrants’ rights activists who are being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice for leaving water and food for migrants in the Cabrieza Pietra National Wildlife Area, a federally controlled refuge in the Southern Arizona desert that is so hot and dry that the human remains of migrants are frequently found there. The brief provides guidance to the federal court on how to examine the activists’ claim that their criminal prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice substantially burdens their sincere religious belief in the sanctity of human life and that they must come to the aiding people in dire distress. The brief supports neither party in the case but rather seeks to provide the court with the proper framework within which to consider the defendants’ motion to dismiss grounded in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The brief was signed by Professor Katherine Franke, the Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and Faculty Director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia University; Barbara A. Atwood, the Mary Anne Richey Professor of Law Emerita, and Director of the Family and Juvenile Law Certificate Program at the James E. Rogers College of Law of the University of Arizona; Caroline Mala Corbin, a Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law; Shefali Milczarek-Desai, the Director of the Workers’ Rights Clinic at the James E. Rogers College of Law of the University of Arizona; Micah Schwartzman, the Joseph W. Dorn Research Professor of Law, and Director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia School of Law; Andrew Silverman, the Joseph M. Livermore Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Arizona; and Nelson Tebbe, a Professor of Law at Cornell University.

“This case raises important questions regarding the use of RFRA as a defense in a criminal prosecution,” said Professor Katherine Franke, the principal author of the brief. “As legal scholars of religious liberty it is our concern that RFRA is interpreted consistently across contexts where sincerely held religious beliefs are substantially burdened by government action. We note in the brief that the Justice Department has taken a position in this case that is much less protective of religious liberty than it has in cases where the underlying issues are more aligned with the administration’s political agenda,” continued Franke.

“Ironically, the arguments made by attorneys working for the Justice Department provide greater protection to bighorn sheep in Southern Arizona than to human beings, whether they be migrants at risk of death or people of faith coming to their aid,” noted Professor Franke.

Last week, Professor Franke submitted an amicus brief on behalf of scholars of religious liberty in U.S. v. Kelley, a case in which the federal government is prosecuting Catholic anti-nuclear activists who staged a mock disarmament of nuclear weapons at a Naval installation in Georgia. The activists, members of the group Kings Bay Plowshares, argue that criminal prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice substantially burdens their sincerely held religious belief that nuclear weapons are evil.

* * * * *
Access PDFs of the Amicus Briefs, here:

Amicus brief in United States of America vs. Caitlin Persis Deighan, et al.

Amicus brief in United States of America vs. Natalee Renee Hoffman, et al.

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.