Sinners or Citizens? Judicial Religious Exemptions from Generally Applicable Laws in the United States

Judicial religious exemptions from general laws have become increasingly controversial in the U.S. This article examines changing understandings of religious exemptions in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Part one discusses the unclear text of religion clauses of the First Amendment whilst part two focuses on doctrinal tensions and contradictions in the Court’s opinions, which show the inability to create a robust regime of religious exemptions. Part three follows the Court’s rulings on COVID–19 pandemic restrictions and reveals that replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Justice Amy Coney Barrett changed the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause. As Part four emphasizes, the American legal system was able to embrace religious exemptions, albeit in a highly limited scope, without courting anarchy. However, the recent trend of grounding religious exemption claims on the third party’s sinful behavior, especially in commercial settings, may prove a challenge to a religiously diverse society.

Załączniki:

2_Grzesznicy czy obywatel.pdf

564 kB