E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Richard Schragger, Micah Schwartzman, and Nelson Tebbe Hobby Lobby is a case involving a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In responding to criticisms of the Court’s decision earlier this week, some commentators have been making the point that RFRA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, after passing through a nearly unanimous Congress in 1993. Democrats shouldn’t complain, so the argument goes, because they supported the very statute that the Court relied upon to protect the rights of Hobby Lobby and its religious owners. As its name suggests, RFRA was designed to “restore” the law of religious free exercise to the legal principles and precedents that the Court had established prior to its heavily criticized decision in Employment Division v. Smith (The Peyote Case). But as we argue in this piece at Slate, the Court in Hobby Lobby strongly misreads RFRA not as a restoration of religious liberty, but rather as a complete break from decades of pre-Smith jurisprudence. And in doing so, it tramples on earlier decisions that would have blocked it from granting exemptions to Hobby Lobby and other for-profit corporations, at least not without explicitly overturning long-standing precedent. Specifically, the Court detaches RFRA from cases like United States v. Lee, which would have been an impediment to granting relief to a for-profit business. The Court erroneously thinks that RFRA gets to start on a fresh slate, freed from pre-Smith precedents. This is an underappreciated and radical reading of RFRA. After Hobby Lobby, the Court is unbound from its precedents under the First Amendment, even those that RFRA was intended to restore. This isn’t Congress’s RFRA, or Bill Clinton’s.
Richard C. Schragger is Perre Bowen Professor Barron F. Black Research Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. You can reach him by e-mail at schragger at virginia.edu
Micah J. Schwartzman is Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. You can reach him by e-mail at schwartzman at virginia.edu Nelson Tebbe is Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. You can reach him by e-mail at nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Posted
2:00 PM
by Guest Blogger [link]