Robert W. Tuttle
- David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion
- 2000 H Street, NW
Washington, District Of Columbia 20052
- [email protected]
Robert Tuttle is the David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion at the George Washington University Law School, where he has taught since 1994, as well as Professor of Religion (by courtesy) in the University’s Columbian College of Arts & Sciences. After graduating from GW Law, he earned a PhD in religious ethics from the University of Virginia; he also holds a BA from the College of William & Mary, and a master’s degree from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. With Ira C. Lupu, Professor Tuttle was the co-director of the Legal Tracking Project of the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, which studied government funding of religious social services. He is the author or co-author of numerous articles and reports in the fields of church-state law and legal ethics, along with the book Secular Government, Religious People (Eerdmans, 2014). Professor Tuttle serves as legal counsel to the Washington, D.C., Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and as a consultant for Lutheran Services in America. He also serves as a Senior Fellow of the Emory University Center for Law and Religion.
BA, College of William and Mary; MA, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago; JD, The George Washington University; PhD, University of Virginia
Robert W. Tuttle is quoted in The Washington Times on how the justices could be forced into settling the free-speech versus gay rights clash.
Robert W. Tuttle is quoted in The Washington Times about whether the Supreme Court may accept an appeal in a ruling against the Archdiocese of Washington.
Robert W. Tuttle is quoted in The Washington Times about Justice Kennedy's decision to leave the Supreme Court appointment up to President Trump.
Robert W. Tuttle is quoted in Yahoo! News about the Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
"Masterpiece Cakeshop– A Troublesome Application Of Free Exercise Principles By A Court Determined To Avoid Hard Questions"
- 1 of 5
- next ›