This was the holding of Employment Division v.
Strict scrutiny vs rational basis free#
In contrast to RFRA, the Free Exercise Clause requires compelling interest review only when a law lacks neutrality or is not generally applicable. Plaintiffs brought their claims under the Free Exercise Clause of the federal Constitution. Stormans stems from regulations passed by the state of Washington. Thirty-two states have similar protections, either through legislation or through interpretations of their state constitutions, but many of those state RFRAs and equivalents are underenforced or relatively untested. The federal RFRA, however, applies only to federal laws. If the Court grants certiorari, the case will become just the third in the last thirty years to provide guidance on when, under the Free Exercise Clause, courts must apply the compelling interest test-rather than rational basis review-to a law or regulation that burdens the free exercise of religion.Ī number of religious freedom cases in the Supreme Court have made headlines in recent years, but almost all have arisen under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), which requires courts to apply compelling interest review to any law or regulation that puts a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. At issue is whether the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution compels the state of Washington to grant pharmacists a religious exemption from a regulatory obligation to fill all lawful prescriptions when the regulation already grants a number of secular exemptions. 15-862, on petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. To join the debate, please email us at pending on the docket of the United States Supreme Court is the case of Stormans v. We also invite responses from our readers. Whenever we publish an article that advocates for a particular position, as here, we offer links to other perspectives on the issue, including ones opposed to the position taken in the article. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author.
Since the petition was filed on January 4, 2016, the case has been distributed for conference three times and rescheduled each time (most recently in late April). The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Wiesman, a case from the 9th Circuit that has a petition for certiorari pending at the Supreme Court. Note from the Editor: This article is about Stormans v.
0 kommentar(er)
