Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

David F Forte; Ronald J Colombo; Richard Epstein; Carl H Esbeck; Robert P George; Mary Ann Glendon; Brian McCall; Stacy Scaldo; Steven Smith

Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

David F Forte, Ronald J Colombo, Richard Epstein, Carl H Esbeck, Robert P George, Mary Ann Glendon, Brian McCall, Stacy Scaldo, Steven Smith

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it.

The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.

Original language	American English
State	Published - Mar 9 2020

Keywords

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Establishment Clause
religious liberty

Disciplines

Constitutional Law
First Amendment
Law
Religion Law
Supreme Court of the United States

Access to Document

Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support oFinal published version, 587 KBLicense: CC BY

Cite this

@misc{a4adea860fc643f2bf35f592c19e1dba,

title = "Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners",

abstract = " Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ({"}RFRA{"}), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it. The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.",

keywords = "Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Establishment Clause, religious liberty",

author = "Forte, \{David F\} and Colombo, \{Ronald J\} and Richard Epstein and Esbeck, \{Carl H\} and George, \{Robert P\} and Glendon, \{Mary Ann\} and Brian McCall and Stacy Scaldo and Steven Smith",

year = "2020",

month = mar,

day = "9",

language = "American English",

type = "Other",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

AU - Forte, David F

AU - Colombo, Ronald J

AU - Epstein, Richard

AU - Esbeck, Carl H

AU - George, Robert P

AU - Glendon, Mary Ann

AU - McCall, Brian

AU - Scaldo, Stacy

AU - Smith, Steven

PY - 2020/3/9

Y1 - 2020/3/9

N2 - Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it. The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.

AB - Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it. The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.

KW - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

KW - Establishment Clause

KW - religious liberty

UR - https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_briefs/21

M3 - Other contribution

ER -

Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

Abstract

Keywords

Disciplines

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this