Free Exercise and Third-Party Harms: Why Scholars Are Wrong and RFRA is Right

Trinity Law Review, Forthcoming

36 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2017

See all articles by Lisa Mathews

Lisa Mathews

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, Students

Date Written: March 15, 2017

Abstract

Some scholars have argued that the outer perimeter of religious freedom should be defined where third-parties are 'harmed' - an argument especially relevant after the Hobby Lobby decision. However, these scholars employ such a broad definition of harm that this "no-harm" standard would undermine the history and substance of the Free Exercise clause. This article reviews these arguments, including recent articles by Professors Chemerinsky & Goodwin and Professors NeJaime & Siegel, and asserts that Congress was wise to implement RFRA, instead of this "no-harm" standard, which appropriately considers the rights of all parties.

Keywords: RFRA, RLUIPA, Hobby Lobby, religious freedom, First Amendment, religious history

JEL Classification: K10

Suggested Citation

Mathews, Lisa, Free Exercise and Third-Party Harms: Why Scholars Are Wrong and RFRA is Right (March 15, 2017). Trinity Law Review, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2933918

Lisa Mathews (Contact Author)

George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, Students ( email )

3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
94
Abstract Views
776
Rank
499,092
PlumX Metrics