Dead DOGS? Towards a Less Restrictive Interpretation of the Establishment Clause: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2)

17 Pages Posted: 18 Apr 2013 Last revised: 20 Jan 2016

See all articles by Luke Beck

Luke Beck

Monash University - Faculty of Law

Date Written: April 18, 2013

Abstract

Cases involving the ‘establishment clause’ of s116 of the Australian Constitution very rarely come before the courts. In Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2) the plaintiff contended that Commonwealth funding of an Islamic school with an on-campus mosque breached the prohibition in s116 of the Constitution that ‘[t]he Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion’. This case note examines that case and discusses three key issues arising from the reasoning: the rejection of giving restrictive meanings to s116, the possibility of non-national establishments of religion and the possibility of multiple establishments of religion. Finally, the case note identifies a number of issues important to the task of reinterpreting the establishment clause.

Keywords: Establishment clause, religion, section 116, First Amendment, establishment

JEL Classification: K10, K30

Suggested Citation

Beck, Luke, Dead DOGS? Towards a Less Restrictive Interpretation of the Establishment Clause: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council (No 2) (April 18, 2013). University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2014, pp. 59-73; Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 14/44. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2253260

Luke Beck (Contact Author)

Monash University - Faculty of Law ( email )

Wellington Road
Clayton, Victoria 3800
Australia

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
110
rank
243,730
Abstract Views
825
PlumX Metrics