If Judges Were Angels: Religious Equality, Free Exercise, and the (Underappreciated) Merits of Smith

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary*

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1190

II. FREE EXERCISE AND RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY ...................................................... 1199

A. From Reynolds to Sherbert.· Doctrinal Evolution of the Free Exercise Clause as Rights-Generating.................................................................... 1200

B. Smith and Free Exercise Clause Atavism................................................. 1204

C. Scholarly Support for an Autonomy-Enhancing Reading of the Free Exercise Clause................................................................................ 1207

D. The Textual Objection to Smith................................................................ 1213

III. THE IRONY OF AUTONOMY AS A MODEL FOR THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE......... 1219

A. "Good" and "Bad" Religions: The Supreme Court's Rhetorical and Substantive Treatment of Minority and Majority Religionists................... 1220

B. Cognitive Dissonance and the Problem of Distinguishing Genuine "Religions" from Illegitimate "Cults"...................................................... 1235

C. Empirical Evidence Demonstrates that the Sherbert- Yoder Approach Systematically Disadvantages Minority Religionists Vis-a-Vis Majority Religionists................................................................................. 1243

IV. AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTION OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: FREE EXERCISE AS AN EQUALITARIAN GUARANTEE .................................................... 1249

A. The Original Understanding: Madison and an Equalitarian Reading of the Free Exercise Clause.......................................................................... 1250

B. An Equalitarian Reading of the Free Exercise Clause Helps to Resolve the Tension Between the Religion Clauses................................................ 1259

C. Smith Better Advances the Equalitarian Project than Does Sherbert-Yoder.......................................................................................... 1260

V. IMPLEMENTING AN EQUALITARIAN FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: A PROPOSED DOCTRINALREVISION........................................................................................ 1262

A. Smith Does Not Adequately Protect Against Religious Discrimination.... 1263

B. Equality Should Require Government to Give Real Reasons When Burdening Religiously Motivated Behavior.............................................. 1264

C. Heightened Scrutiny Review (Short of Strict Scrutiny) Would Probably Benefit Majority Religionists More than Minority Religionists, but Perhaps the Equalitarian Focus Would Help Judges Past the Problem of Cognitive Dissonance and Eccentric Religious Believers..................... 1268

VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 1272

APPENDIX.................................................................................................................. 1274

I. INTRODUCTION

In the almost two decades since the Supreme Court decided Employment Division v. Smith,1 the standard academic commentary on the decision has been harshly critical.2 As Professor Douglas Laycock put the matter in the immediate aftermath of Smith's release, "Smith produced widespread disbelief and outrage."3 More recently, Professor Kent Greenawalt described Smith as having "eviscerated" the Free Exercise Clause and asked if "anything that is not redundant remains."4 Smith squarely held that neutral laws of general applicability that burden religiously mandated behaviors need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest to survive review under the Free Exercise Clause.5 The decision served as a sharp break with the prior interpretive approach to the Free Exercise Clause advocated by Justice Brennan in Sherbert v. Verner, holding neutral laws burdening religious practice up to strict judicial scrutiny.6

Eminent constitutional scholars of the Religion Clauses,7 including Judge Michael McConnell and Douglas Laycock,8 have excoriated Smith as inconsistent with the text and original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause, a sharp break with established precedent, and, ultimately, a naked betrayal of basic human rights values.9 They argue that the decision renders the Free Exercise Clause meaningless and, accordingly, that the Supreme Court should abandon it.10 With recent changes in the Court's composition, the prospect of overturning Smith has become more plausible." In consequence, it is an opportune moment to reexamine Smith and to consider whether its approach to the Free Exercise Clause advances the values of religious liberty as effectively as the jurisprudence that it replaced.

There are two competing conceptions of the Free Exercise Clause. First, o...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here