Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe New Law of Religion
Hobby Lobby rewrites religious-freedom law in ways that ignore everything that came before.
By Micah Schwartzman, Richard Schragger, and Nelson Tebbe
Mondays decision in Hobby Lobby was unprecedented. Much of the commentary has focused on the Supreme Courts decision to extend rights of religious free exercise to for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby is for religion what Citizens United was for free speechthe corporatization of our basic liberties. But Hobby Lobby is also unprecedented in another, equally important way. For the first time, the court has interpreted a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA), as affording more protection for religion than has ever been provided under the First Amendment. While some have read Hobby Lobby as a narrow statutory ruling, it is much more than that. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.
To see how we got here requires some history. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In a pair of cases, Sherbert v. Verner (1962) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the court held that the government may not impose substantial burdens on religion unless it has a compelling interest and no alternative forms of regulation could be used to advance that interest. But in 1990, the Supreme Court repudiated this balancing test for assessing Free Exercise claims. In Employment Division v. Smith, which upheld a federal law banning the use of peyote, the court declared that generally applicable laws can incidentally burden religious practices without violating the First Amendment, and that the government does not need to provide any special justification for such laws.
After a storm of criticism, in 1993, a nearly unanimous Congress passed RFRA to overturn the Supreme Courts decision in Smith. As the text of the law states, its purpose is to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert and Yoder. In other words, RFRA was designed to reinstate the legal principles that had existed before the courts dramatic anti-religion decision in Smith.
But that is not how the court in Hobby Lobby interprets the law. Instead, writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito claims that RFRA marks a complete separation from First Amendment case law. This is not a restoration of the legal principles that existed prior to the courts decision in Smith. The majority isnt just reading RFRA to overturn its decision in the much-maligned peyote case. It isnt just bringing back the balancing test from its decisions in the 1960s and 1970s. Quietly, buried in the text and footnotes of the majority opinion, Justice Alito holds that RFRA is a complete break from earlier law, a discontinuitynot a restoration, but a revolutionin the test for protecting religious liberty. The law of religious exemptions can evolve past Smith, as Justice Alito points out, but there is a difference between evolution and revolution.
more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/after_hobby_lobby_there_is_only_rfra_and_that_s_all_you_need.html
Great article on just how extreme and anti-conservative (in the old sense) this ruling was. Frightening.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1091 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (23)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New Law of Religion (Original Post)
n2doc
Jul 2014
OP
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)1. Big, Big, BIG K&R. Excellent article. Must read nt
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)2. So, Alito is asserting that a statute can override the Constitution?
Fucking incredible!
starroute
(12,977 posts)3. So could someone bring a case alleging that RFRA is unconstitutional?
I know there's not much hope of it with the current makeup of the Court, but it does seem to open the door to just that.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)4. They've gone so far beyond precedent
Congress could repeal RFRA and it would not matter. Scalito and the boyz would just pull something else out of their asses to 'justify' whatever they want.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)6. The ends justify the means, don cha know?
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)5. Isn't that when they are supposed to strike down the statute? WTF? But this is exactly how I felt
about the decision, that it trumped free speech of the employees.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)7. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, n2doc.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)8. Kick, kick, kick.
Taking a break now to let my blood pressure drop.