This article analyzes the ongoing controversy over the installation of an eruv in Westhampton Beach. The author first provides an analytical description of the case with reference to other recent eruv controversies. Similar to arguments advanced in earlier eruv controversies, lawyers in the Westhampton case have taken recourse to the First Amendment, with proponents of the eruv relying on the free exercise clause, and opponents relying on the establishment clause. The article then proceeds to discuss the implications of this controversy for the larger issues of religion in the public sphere, as one of the critical issues emerging in all modern eruv controversies is the visibility of religion in the public sphere. The author further seeks to comment on the way the lawyers in the Westhampton Beach controversy used her scholarly work on the function of the eruv in ancient rabbinic law.
Charlotte E. Fonrobert,
Installations of Jewish Law in Public Urban Space: An American Eruv Controversy,
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol90/iss1/4