What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

Helleberg v. Estes

Citation: 2020 S.D. 27

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Jensen

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that a limited private easement granted Thomas Estes the right of access across Lot 2R within the Estes Subdivision solely to repair or install water lines and that a prescriptive easement did not exist in favor of Estes for the use of a road (Easement Road) that crossed Lot 2R, holding that the circuit court did not err. Estes owned Lots 3 and 4R2 in the subdivision, and Kathrine owned Lot 2R. After hostiles developed concerning Estes' use of the Easement Road, the parties filed multiple claims against one another. After several of the claims were settled or resolved on summary judgment the circuit court resolved the remaining claims during a bench trial. Estes appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it limited the private easement granting a right of access across Lot 2R solely for the repair or installation of water lines; and (2) the circuit court did not err in determining that the evidence did not satisfy the elements for a prescriptive easement.