In the last 10 years, the Supreme Court has decided several cases grounded in the claim of a litigant asserting a right not to undertake an action because of a sincere religious belief. This claim has been the basis for that litigant denying various opportunities to others. In none of these cases, has there been a serious examination of the depth or even (in some cases) the basis for this “sincere religious belief.” Judges have regularly examined these claims in criminal cases, but not in civil cases.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 1134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to three closely held corporations and held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened their religious exercise. Id. at 2774 (“No one has questioned the sincerity of their religious beliefs”). So, without any serious analysis (or perhaps any analysis at all), the court had no difficulty in meeting RFRA’s requirement that their asserted beliefs were sincere and religious in nature.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
