One set of laws governing the land.
That is the basis of our Constitution... but the Supreme Court is thinking that maybe two sets of laws or more might govern the country.
A state court has ordered an Orthodox Jew to demand that a rabbinical court reverse a religious ruling. That goes too far.National ReviewBy Dan McLaughlinSeptember 23, 2026The use of religious tribunals to settle disputes that might otherwise be heard in civil courts has long been a fault line in systems of civil law. The very structure of Anglo-American law presumes a sometimes-abstruse division between the spheres of law and equity that has roots in medieval England, where the chancery courts (while ruling in the king’s name) were often de facto religious tribunals. In more modern times, when the government’s courts are civil, we see instead controversies arise when litigants want to use the religious courts — or feel compelled by their religious communities to do so.[...]he use of religious tribunals to settle disputes that might otherwise be heard in civil courts has long been a fault line in systems of civil law. The very structure of Anglo-American law presumes a sometimes-abstruse division between the spheres of law and equity that has roots in medieval England, where the chancery courts (while ruling in the king’s name) were often de facto religious tribunals. In more modern times, when the government’s courts are civil, we see instead controversies arise when litigants want to use the religious courts — or feel compelled by their religious communities to do so.Now, this hot potato has landed on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Justice Sonia Sotomayor ordered Wednesday that a response be filed by Monday, September 28, in Strulovitch v. Bain, a case arising from a collision between the courts of New York State and an Orthodox Jew’s resort to a rabbinical court known as a beis (or beth) din. The dispute is a real one, although whether it belongs on the emergency docket is a closer question, especially because it is embedded in a commercial dispute whose twists and turns are characteristically intricate.
My problem is... "feel compelled by their religious communities to do so," and also what happens if someone is not a member of that religious sect? The way I see it, it is like a clause to use binding arbitration (which I am against). As long as both parties agree, I don't see a problem, but if it is forced on a person... no. And that a person can back out at any time.
The order by Jamieson goes further than necessary in trying to “rectify the potential damage” to a litigant’s “reputation in the religious community.” Whether the Supreme Court will find that this is a sufficiently urgent First Amendment violation to warrant emergency relief is another matter. And it’s always hazardous to judge the whole case just on one side’s argument. But the narrow relief of striking that portion of the order seems warranted if one wishes to avoid a collision between the secular and religious courts.
A can of worms is about to be opened when you have two or more sets of laws...
One nation under one law!
Hmm... I wonder if they would change their tune if the religious court ruled that trans women are women. I bet you would hear the Supreme Court change their tune.
I have to wonder if a religious court or body issues a ruling that affirms trans people, I think the the conservative courts or lawmakers will suddenly become very interested in asserting state supremacy and invalidating religious autonomy. However, when religious rules are used to restrict rights or enforce traditional hierarchies, I see the same institutions will be eager to carve out broad "religious freedom" exemptions.
