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
Is Hobby Lobby Worse for Religious Liberty than Smith?
Andrew Koppelman
Imagine
a world where religious people are a kind of aristocratic elite who are
entitled to injure nonadherents with impunity – a world which would
“permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Employment Division
v. Smith held that “courting anarchy” in this manner was a conclusive
reason to hold that there is no constitutional right to religious
exemptions from laws of general applicability. The Hobby Lobby decision
(by some of the same judges!) threatens to bring that world into being.
If
government refusals to accommodate are viewed with the kind of
skepticism that the Court displays in Hobby Lobby, then claims of
accommodation will always be supported by some imaginable less
restrictive means, even if its enactment is politically impossible. The
consequence in practice will be an interpretation of religious liberty
in which adherents get to harm nonadherents. Religious liberty here
means the right to impose your religion on other people who don’t share
your views.
One of the principal attractions of the idea of
religious liberty has always been that the exercise of one person’s
religion doesn’t hurt anyone else. In Thomas Jefferson’s classic
formulation: “it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are
twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
But paying for contraceptives that should be covered by insurance is
exactly like having one’s pocket picked, while involuntary pregnancy is
worse than a broken leg. If this is the official meaning of religious
liberty, then the broad acceptance of religious liberty will quickly
fade.