Law Commons^™

A Statute Is Worth A Thousand Words: Same Sex Marriage And Rfra, Daniel Korda

Daniel Korda

This article explores the effectiveness of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense for individuals with religious objections towards servicing same sex marriages. Specifically, this article (a) evaluates if the Federal Government has a compelling interest to promote equal accommodations for same sex marriages and (b) considers if "private" individuals suing private parties for refusing to service their marriage are in fact "public" plaintiffs, as the enforcement of laws banning marital discrimination have traditionally been enforced by the State.

A Primer On Hobby Lobby: For-Profit Corporate Entities’ Challenge To The Hhs Mandate, Free Exercise Rights, Rfra’S Scope, And The Nondelegation Doctrine, Terri R. Day, Leticia M. Diaz, Danielle Weatherby

Pepperdine Law Review

Earlier this term, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated case of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, the first of a litany of cases in which for-profit business entities are invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") in support of their claim that the Affordable Care Act’s HHS Mandate violates their freedom of religion. In particular, these plaintiffs argue that the Mandate’s requirement that employer-provided health insurance covers the costs of contraceptives, the "morning after" pill, and other fertility-related drugs conflicts with their deeply-held religious belief that life begins at conception and is, therefore, unconstitutional. …

"I Now Pronounce You Husband And Wives": The Case For Polygamous Marriage After United States V. Windsor And Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Peter N. Swisher

Law Faculty Publications

The purpose of this article is to question the continuing validity of Reynolds in light of subsequent United States Supreme Court deci- sions, including-most recently-UnitedStates v. Windsor and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Based upon these subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, proponents of polygamous marriage now have a very strong case for validating polygamous marriages on cultural, religious, and constitutional grounds.

Insubstantial Burdens, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

In order to win a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or “RFRA”), you have to show that your religious beliefs have been “substantially burdened” by a governmental law or practice. In her dissent to Hobby Lobby, Justice Ginsburg accused the majority of taking an approach to defining “substantial burden” that abdicated the judicial role in determining what a substantial burden was. In her dissent to the denial of cert in the Wheaton case, Sotomayor advanced the same line. “I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” she …

A Word Of Warning From A Woman: Arbitrary, Categorical, And Hidden Religious Exemptions Threaten Lgbt Rights, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

Religious exemptions have already undermined women’s rights. Now exemptions threaten gays and lesbians. The Constitution protected women’s equality and liberty until religious exemptions eroded them. Today, as gays and lesbians stand on the threshold of marriage equality, religious exemptions threaten to diminish their hard-earned constitutional right. For this reason, I argue it is past time to reject the religious exemption theory of religious liberty, which privileges religion over civil and constitutional rights, in favor of neutral laws that govern all. Religious exemptions pervade American law in numerous ways that are harmful to civil rights.

In this essay, I identify three …

Rethinking Religious Minorities' Political Power, Hillel Y. Levin

Scholarly Works

This Article challenges the assumption that small religious groups enjoy little political power. According to the standard view, courts, because of their countermajoritarian qualities, are indispensable for protecting religious minority groups from oppression by the majority. But this assumption fails to account for the many and varied ways in which the majoritarian branches have chosen to protect and accommodate even unpopular religious minority groups, as well as the courts’ failures to do so.

The Article offers a public choice analysis to account for the surprising majoritarian reality of religious accommodationism. Further, it explores the important implications of this reality for …