Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …
Rethinking The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Questions Of Religious Practice And Belief, Samuel J. Levine
Rethinking The Supreme Court's Hands-Off Approach To Questions Of Religious Practice And Belief, Samuel J. Levine
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Part I of this Article discusses Supreme Court cases prior to 1981, in which the Court first expressed its hands-off approach to deciding questions of religious practice and belief. This Part suggests that in these decisions, as a result of a proper concern for religious autonomy, the Court already began the process of expanding the principle of judicial non-interference, at the cost of sacrificing effective adjudication of important constitutional issues. Part II of this Article critiques the Court's approach in Free Exercise Clause cases, identifying different problems that have arisen as a result of the Court's approach. This Part argues …