Religion Law

Print
Comment
Volume 92.7
Necessity in Free Exercise
Brady Earley
B.S., B.A. 2021, Brigham Young University; J.D., Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science, The University of Chicago.

I would like to thank Professor Geoffrey Stone and members of The University of Chicago Law Review including Owen Hoepfner, Jack Brake, Hannah Zobair, Ryan Jain-Liu, Zoë Ewing, Jackson Cole, and others for contributing to the publication of this Comment.

The Free Exercise Clause is a broadly worded constitutional prohibition against government intrusion on religious exercise. To construct limits, courts have consistently required government officials to demonstrate the necessity of state action burdening religion. Yet government officials regularly fail to produce evidence of necessity, leaving judges to intuit or assume whether necessity exists. In this Comment, Brady Earley offers a better way. Using a method known as difference-in-differences (DiD), lawmakers can draw upon the experience of existing state laws to enact laws justified with evidence. The Comment demonstrates the value of DiD with a current free exercise controversy involving the Old Order Amish and their objection to Ohio’s flashing light requirement for buggies. Applying DiD to this conflict reveals that Ohio’s buggy light law led to an estimated 23% reduction in buggy-related crashes compared to Michigan and Kentucky—states with less restrictive buggy requirements. Beyond this case study, the Comment also discusses how DiD can help address recent Supreme Court conflicts over tax exemptions for religious organizations, LGBTQ-themed books in schools, and religious charter schools. These examples grapple with the problems and the showcase the possibilities of a data-driven method to address necessity in free exercise.

Constitutional Law Empirical Analysis Freedom of Religion
Print
Article
Volume 92.1
Reestablishing Religion
Richard Schragger
Walter L. Brown Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

Micah Schwartzman
Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

Nelson Tebbe
Jane M.G. Foster Professor of Law, Cornell Law School.

For comments and discussion, we thank Arvind Abraham, Alan Brownstein, Richard Garnett, Frederick Gedicks, Linda Greenhouse, Aziz Huq, John C. Jeffries, Jr., Michael Klarman, Andrew Koppelman, Martin Lederman, Leah Litman, Ira C. Lupu, James Nelson, James Oleske, Richard Primus, Frank Ravitch, Kate Redburn, Zalman Rothschild, James E. Ryan, Elizabeth Sepper, Anna Su, Mark Tushnet, and participants in the Nootbaar Workshop at Pepperdine Caruso Law; the Workshop in Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at the Kadish Center for Morality, Law & Public Affairs at UC Berkeley School of Law; the “Text and (What Kind of) History?” conference hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School; and the Cornell Summer Faculty Workshop. Generous support was provided by the Milton and Eleanor Gould Fund at Cornell Law School. For research assistance, we thank Io Jones, Mackenzie Kubik, Leah Schwartz, and Mary Triplett.

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. Now, the government must treat religion equally with respect to providing public benefits. But it must also grant special exemptions from regulations that burden religion. We refer to this regime as structural preferentialism. This Article offers an external, political account of changes in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence by analyzing them as if they were the result of political conflicts between competing interest groups. Focusing on the role of religion in political polarization, rapid disaffiliation from denominations, and shifting strategies to fund religious schools, this political perspective has explanatory and predictive power that extends beyond conventional legal arguments about text, history, and precedent. Applying this approach, we predict that structural preferentialism will transform First Amendment doctrine and provide material grounds for its own entrenchment.

Volumes