G. Alan Tarr

Interest Groups and Judicial Federalism: Organizational Litigation in State Judiciaries

Tables and Figures Preface: Interest Groups, Rights Litigation, and Judicial Federalism Abbreviations State Courts, Federalism, and Rights Understanding State Court Litigation in the Federal Context Legal Incentives in Takings Law Interest Group Litigation in State Takings Cases Legal Incentives in Obscenity Law Obscenity: The ACLU in State Judiciaries Obscenity: The Organizational Threshold and Group Litigation Conclusion: Interest Groups and Rights in a Decentralized Litigation Environment Appendix A: National Organizational Participation in State Court Takings Litigation Appendix B: National Organizational Participation in State Court Obscenity Litigation Appendix C: Methodological Appendix Table of Cases Works Cited

Religion under State Constitutions

State constitutional provisions concerning church and state differ in specificity and substance from the First Amendments establishment clause. In large part, these differences reflect the fact that the state provisions originated in concrete historical disputes. After the American colonies declared independence, conflict over established churches led states to adopt provisions safeguarding freedom of worship and prohibiting aid to religious institutions. During the nineteenth century, conflict between Protestants and Catholics over education resulted in the adoption in most states of provisions banning aid to parochial schools and prohibiting religious influences in schools receiving public funds. Reliance on either state or federal constitutional guarantees, therefore, should result in invalidation of religious exercises in public schools. In other cases, however, outcomes may depend on the constitutional basis for decisions. Whereas various indirect aids to parochial schools have survived scrutiny under the establishment clause, they may run afoul of state constitutional bans; and whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld religious displays, some state courts have ruled that they violate state constitutional prohibitions.