NDLScholarship

Title

Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners

Authors

Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law SchoolFollow
Ryan A. Shores, Hunton & Williams LLP
William J. Haun, Hunton & Williams LLP

Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

8-24-2015

Abstract

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and the interests of third parties. RFRA will not exempt free exercise from a law’s command simply because the law substantially burdens religion—nor will it deny a religious exemption simply because the exemption would affect a third party.

Comments

Docket Nos. 14-1418. 14-1453. 14-505. 15-35. 15-105. 15-119. & 15-191.

Table of Authorities includes:

Richard W. Garnett, Accommodation, Establishment, and Freedom of Religion, 67 VAND. L. REV EN BANC 39 (2014).

William K. Kelley, The Primacy of Political Actors in Accommodation of Religion, 22 U. HAW. L. REV. 403 (2000).

Recommended Citation

Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, 136 S.Ct. 446 (2015) (No. 15-105).