Hobby Lobby Flowcharts!

Click here for my first stab at trying to make the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision a little bit more understandable. I’ll be adding more information to the flowcharts in the coming days.

In viewing the flowcharts, it is important to avoid a common misconception about the case.  Hobby Lobby did NOT assert a claim under the First Amendment. Rather, it brought its claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, otherwise known as RFRA.

Congress enacted RFRA in response to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which fundamentally altered the First Amendment analysis of laws of general applicability (like criminal laws banning the possession and use of certain drugs), which imposed an incidental burden on an individual’s exercise of his religion (e.g., in Smith, certain Native American’s use of peyote for sacramental purposes).

Before Smith, the Supreme Court had required states seeking to enforce such laws against a religious objector to demonstrate a compelling state interest to justify the burden on religious exercise. The Supreme Court in Smith overruled several cases and established a new standard: as long as the law of general applicability is otherwise constitutional, any incidental effect on religious practices is constitutionally acceptable. Congress then passed RFRA to effectively impose on itself the higher burden that had existed before Smith.  RFRA provides that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”  It then provides an exception to that rule if two conditions are met: 1) the burden must be necessary to further a “compelling government interest,” and 2) the law imposing the burden must be the “least restrictive way” in which to further the government interest.

The flowcharts show how a generic RFRA claim is analyzed and how the majority and main dissenting justices decided the issues in the case.


One Comment on “Hobby Lobby Flowcharts!”

  1. Great chart! It doesn’t cover the underlying “fact vs belief” hierarchy problem, and I’m not sure how you would. The basis upon which Hobby Lobby (Green family) objected to the 4 treatments was they regarded them as “abortifacients”. However, they are contraceptives. They prevent fertilization. And Alito, in the majority opinion, allowed that their belief deserved exemption despite being factually incorrect.

    Religion trumps science, so long as it’s sincere.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 356 other followers