Law Commons^™

Free Exercise And The Definition Of Religion: Confusion In The Federal Courts, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The United States Supreme Court has sent mixed messages about what constitutes religion for free exercise purposes. The Court’s failure to offer clear criteria has resulted in widely differing interpretations in the lower courts, resulting in dissimilar treatment of relevantly similar cases. Further, some of the circuit courts employ factors to determine what qualifies as religious that are much more restrictive than the factors employed by the Court.

This article describes some of the differing approaches to defining religion offered in the circuits, noting that one of the approaches adopted across a few circuits not only mischaracterizes the Supreme Court’s …

Definitions, Religion, And Free Exercise Guarantees, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Non-religious practices do not receive those same protections, which makes the ability to distinguish between religious and non-religious practices important. Regrettably, members of the Court have been unable to agree about how to distinguish the religious from the non-religious—sometimes, the implicit criteria focus on the sincerity of the beliefs, sometimes the strength of the beliefs or the role that they play in an individual’s life, and sometimes the kind of beliefs. In short, the Court has virtually guaranteed an incoherent jurisprudence by sending contradictory signals with …

Narrow Tailoring, Compelling Interests, And Free Exercise: On Aca, Rfra And Predictability, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The holding in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Incorporated was narrow in scope—closely held, for-profit corporations must be afforded an exemption from providing insurance coverage for a few types of contraception if the corporation has religious objections to providing that coverage. In addition, the exemption requirement was based on a construction of federal statute rather than on the Constitution’s free exercise guarantees. Both the narrowness of the holding and the Court’s express disavowal that it was offering a constitutional analysis might make the opinion appear relatively inconsequential. However, because the opinion changes the focus and standards of federal law and …