The Volokh Conspiracy

From Eric Rassbach (Becket

Fund) on what Holt v. Hobbs
means for religious liberty
By Eugene Volokh January 20 at 7:20 PM

EricRassbachfromtheBecketFundthepublicinterestlawfirmthatonTuesdaywon
theHoltv.Hobbsprisonerrightscasewaskindenoughtopassalonghisthoughtson
whatthecasemeansforreligiouslibertymoregenerally:
TheSupremeCourthashadquitearunofreligiouslibertycasesinthelast
fewyears.AlmostexactlythreeyearsagotheCourtdecidedHosannaTabor
EvangelicalLutheranChurchandSchoolv.EEOC.Lastyearitruledin
Burwellv.HobbyLobbyandissuedimportantordersinLittleSistersofthe
Poorv.BurwellandWheatonCollegev.Burwell.Andithasstartedoff2015
withHoltv.Hobbs.Ineverycase,theJusticesruledinfavorofthereligious
plaintiff.Inthreeofthefivecases,theJusticeswereunanimous,whileinthe
othertwo(HobbyLobbyandWheaton)therewerevocaldissents.
Thisraisesseveralinterestingquestions:Whyhastherebeenarecentstring
ofreligiouslibertycases?Whydoesthegovernmentkeeplosing?Andwhat
doesHoltmeanforreligiouslibertycasesgoingforward?
Whyhastherebeenarecentstringofreligiouslibertycases?
Theanswertothefirstquestionliesinthetrendofgovernmentexpansion.

Imaginea3DVenndiagramoffieldsofhumanactivity,withthefieldof
governmentregulationrepresentedasasphere,andthefieldofreligious
activityrepresentedasanother,intersectingsphere.Religiousliberty
conflictsarisewithintheoverlapbetweenthesphereofgovernment
regulationandthesphereofreligiousactivity.Wheneithersphereexpands
overtime,thesetofpotentialconflictsincreases.Wheneithersphere
contracts,thereislessoverlapandlesspotentialconflict.
Newconflictsmostfrequentlyarisewhenthesphereofgovernmentactivity
expands:governmentseekstoexercisemorecomprehensivecontrolovera
fieldofhumanendeavorwherereligiouspeoplehavealreadylongbeen
active.Forexample,therecentrashoflitigationoverthecontraception
mandatearosebecausethefederalgovernmentsoughttoexpanditscontrol
overthehealthcareplansofreligiousorganizationsinawayithadnever
donebefore.
Sometimesofcoursethesphereofgovernmentshrinks,reducingthe
amountofreligiouslibertyconflict.Forexample,oncethedraftwasended,
thenumberofconflictssurroundingreligiousconscientiousobjectionto
militaryservicesankprecipitously.However,inrecentyearsgovernment
expansion,ratherthancontraction,hasbeentherule,resultinginmore
potentialreligiouslibertyconflicts.
Itisalsosometimesthecasethatthesphereofreligiousactivityexpands,
resultinginmoreconflict.Thishappensmostfrequentlywhennew
minorityreligionsbegintobeactiveintheUnitedStates.Thusa
significantlydisproportionateshareofreligiouslibertyconflictsinvolve
newreligiousminorities(see,e.g.,ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.
v.CityofHialeah(Santeriaplaintiffsseekingtoengageinanimalsacrifice)
Gonzalesv.OCentroBeneficentedoUniaodoVegetal(Brazilianspiritist

churchplaintiffsseekingtodrinkhallucinogenictea)Cutterv.Wilkinson
(Wiccan,Odinist,andChristianIdentityprisonerplaintiffsseekingaccess
toreligiousmaterials)).
Holtisanexampleofthistrend:50yearsagotherewerelikelynoobservant
MusliminmatesintheStateofArkansas,sothequestionofMusliminmates
beardssimplydidnotarise.Sinceanumberofreligiousgroupspreviously
absentfromtheUnitedStateshaverecentlyimmigratedtotheUnitedStates
(oftenduetopersecutionintheirtraditionalhomelands),thenumberof
potentialconflictshasgoneup.
Itisalsoworthnotingthatsinceregulations,ratherthanstatutorytext,tend
tobethebleedingedgeofthesphereofgovernmentauthority,itistypically
executivebranchrulesthatenduptriggeringthedisputes.Thisistrueofall
oftherecentdisputesthathavecomebeforetheSupremeCourt.
AlthoughHosannaTaborinvolvedacongressionalstatute(TitleVII),the
drivingforcebehindthelitigationwasanewEEOCinterpretation,whichthe
agencysoughttoenforceincourt.InHobbyLobby,itwasanewsetof
federalregulationsthatgaverisetothelitigationratherthantheAffordable
CareActitself,whichdidnotrequirehealthplanstocovercontraceptives.
AndinHolt,itwastheArkansasDepartmentofCorrectionsfacialhair
policyratherthanastatestatutethatledtotheconflict.Sincegovernment
regulationsgrowatanevenfasterclipthanstatutes,therateofpotential
conflictscanexpandveryquickly.
Thusthetrendsofgrowinggovernmentregulationandarrivalofadditional
religiousminoritiesintheUnitedStateshavecombinedtoincreasethe
potentialnumberofreligiouslibertyconflicts.Andsincethetrendofthe
expansionofgovernmentactivityatalllevelsfederal,state,andlocal

showsnosignofabating,wecanexpectmorereligiouslibertyconflictsin
comingyears.
Whydoesthegovernmentkeeplosing?
Anothertrendthatseemslikelytocontinueisthegovernmentsoverall
losingstreak.Whyhasthegovernmentkeptlosingthesecases?Somewould
arguethatthatthestereotypesaretrue:theCourtsupposedlyhasa
conservativecastandthusconsistentlyrulesinfavorofreligiousgroups,
especiallytraditionalones.Thisiswrongforseveralreasons.First,as
Eugenehasalreadypointedout,evenusingacrudewhichreligionswin
scorecarditisapparentthattraditionalreligionsfareifanythingworsethan
newreligionsattheCourt.
Second,thisargumenthaslittleexplanatorypowerunlessonewantstocast
alloftheJusticesasconservative.TheunanimousdecisionsinCutter,O
Centro,HosannaTabor,andHoltshowthatreligiouslibertyboth
institutionalandindividualenjoysacrosstheboardsupportamongthe
Justices.
Whatsabetterreasonforgovernmentslosingstreak?Partoftheanswer
liesintheextremelitigationpositionstakenbygovernmentsinreligion
cases.
InHosannaTabor,thefederalgovernmenttookthepositionthatthelong
recognizedministerialexceptionsimplydidnotexist.TheCourtcalledthe
federalgovernmentspositionextreme,untenable,andaremarkable
view.(IfanyoneisawareofanothercasewheretheSolicitorGenerals
litigationpositionhasbeencalledextreme,untenableandremarkable
bytheunanimousSupremeCourt,pleasefeelfreetosaysointhe

comments.HosannaTabormightbetheonlycase.)InHolt,Arkansas
askedforcompletedeference,claimingthatjudgesinthecalmserenityof
judicialchambershadnoabilitytoevaluatewhetherprisonscould
accommodatereligiousexercise.
Anotherpartoftheanswerliesinthetypicalprocessofgovernment
regulation.Governmentalagencies,whichdonotanswerdirectlytothe
public,simplyarentinclinedtocompromisewithsmallreligiousgroupsor
religiousindividuals.Sincethereislittleifanypoliticalpricetopay,and
membersofminorityreligionsareoftenwithoutsignificantpoliticalpower
(asourHoltcocounselProf.DouglasLaycockhaslongargued),thereis
littleincentivetocompromise.
Putanotherway,governmentagencieswilltrytogetawaywithaslittle
accommodationaspossible.Inmostareasofthelaw,governmentagencies
canregulateonabecauseIsaysobasis.Butwhenfederalcivilrights
statuteslikeRLUIPAandRFRAintervene,thisapproachfailsandthe
governmentlosesincourt.
WhatdoesHoltmeanforthefutureofreligiousliberty?
EugenehasalreadyablysummarizedtodaysdecisioninHolthere.Ill
simplypointoutafewfeaturesofthedecisionthatarerelevanttothefuture
ofreligiouslibertylitigation.
Todaysrulingwillaffectmanydifferentarenasofreligiouslibertylitigation.
Inthefirstinstance,itwillhelpprisonerplaintiffsinotherRLUIPAcases.
Forexample,theBecketFundiscurrentlysuingthestateofTexasoverits
refusaltoprovidesomeJewishinmateswithakosherdiet.TheDepartment
ofJusticehasasimilarcaseagainstthestateofFlorida.TexasandFlorida

havemademanyofthemeresaysoargumentsthattheCourtrejected
today.HoltwilllikelyhelpJewishinmatesinFloridaandTexasgainmore
secureaccesstoakosherdiet.
Second,itwillhelpplaintiffsinreligiouslandusecases.Localgovernments
oftenputroadblocksinthewayofchurches,synagogues,mosques,and
otherhousesofworship.RLUIPAslanduseprovisionsarenearlyidentical
toitsprisonerprovisionsmeaningthattodaysdecisionwillmakeitharder
forlocalbureacratstogiveshortshrifttohousesofworshipinthezoning
process.
Third,itwillhelpotherRFRAplaintiffs.Forexample,theBecketFund
currentlyrepresentsaNativeAmericanchurchthatseeksaccesstosacred
eaglefeathersdespiteDepartmentofInteriorregulations.Thoseplaintiffs
havebeengivenahelpinghandbythisdecision.Thiswillalsobetruewith
respecttothenonprofitHHSmandatecases,whicharecurrentlyworking
theirwaytowardstheSupremeCourt.
Fourth,itwillhelpotherplaintiffsincludingthosewithnonreligious
claimswhoareconfrontedwithacompellinggovernmentalinterest
affirmativedefensefromthegovernment.Freespeechandfreeexercise
plaintiffswillbeprimebeneficiaries.Forexample,theWilliamsYuleecase
arguedjustthismorningcouldwellbeinfluencedbyHoltsexplicationof
thestrictscrutinytest.
Thereareseveralinterestingdoctrinaldevelopmentsaswell.Iwillnote
threewithrespecttothereligiousplaintiffsburdenofprovingasubstantial
burden,andfourwithrespecttothegovernmentdefendantsburdenof
provingitscompellinggovernmentalinterestaffirmativedefense.

Substantialburden.Withrespecttosubstantialburden,theCourthas
clarifiedseveralissuesthathaveoftenconfusedlowercourtsdeciding
religiousclaims.
First,theavailabilityofalternativemeansofpracticingreligionissimply
notrelevantunderRLUIPA.Governmentscantforceareligiousplaintiffto
substituteortradeoffonereligiouspracticeforanother.
Second,itisirrelevantthatsomereligionshaveananaloguetotheexcuseof
duressdivinecreditaplaintiffmayreceivefortryingbutfailingdueto
governmentcoercion.Holtsaysthatthisdoesnotreducetheburdenona
religiousplaintiff.
Third,theCourtrepeatstherulethatidiosyncraticbeliefsarejustas
protectedasfamiliarones.Governmentofficialsdontgettogradereligious
beliefsonwhethertheymakesensetothem.
Strictscrutiny.Withrespecttogovernmentsaffirmativedefenseunder
strictscrutiny,theCourthasreaffirmeditsrigorousstandardfromprior
precedents.
First,governmentscannotprevailsimplybyassertingabroadlyformulated
interestlikeprisonsecurity.Instead,courtsmustevaluatethe
governmentsdefenseasappliedtothepersontheparticularclaimant
whosesincereexerciseofreligiousisbeingsubstantiallyburdened.That
meansthatcourtsmustscrutinizetheassertedharmofgrantingspecific
exemptionstoparticularreligiousclaimantsandlooktothemarginal
interestinenforcingthechallengedgovernmentactioninthatparticular
context.Forexample,intheFloridaandTexaskoshercases,Floridaand
Texaswillhavetoprovetheiraffirmativedefenseswithrespecttoobservant

Jewishinmates,nottheentireinmatepopulation.
Second,governmentscannotsatisfystrictscrutinywhentheirrulesare
substantiallyunderinclusivethatis,whentherulesmakeexceptionsfor
analogousnonreligiousconductbutnotthereligiousplaintiffsconduct.
Whatthismeansasapracticalmatteristhatgovernments,notreligious
plaintiffs,mustbeartheriskofunevenrulemaking(whichtheycontroland
canamend).IntheMcAlleneaglefeatherscase,thismeansthatthefederal
governmentsmanyexceptionstothegeneralbanonpossessingeagle
featherswithoutapermitwilllikelybefataltotheprohibitiononcertain
NativeAmericanspossessingthosefeathersforreligiousreasons.
Third,governmentswillbeheldtoaveryhighevidentiarystandard.For
example,inthenonprofitHHSmandatecases,thefederalgovernment
madeadecisioninallofthecasesnottoputanyevidencebeforethefederal
courts.Althoughitinvokestherightsofthirdparties,thegovernmenthas
notputonanyevidencethatasinglepersonhasbeendeniedaccesstoany
drugordevice.Instead,thegovernmentseekstoprevailinthosecasesbased
solelyonitsownsayso.
Atthetime,thismayhavemadeacertainamountoftacticalsensethe
governmentdoesntwanttohavetolitigatethesecasesonebyone,andwhat
ifitishardtofindactualevidenceofthirdpartyharm?ButinlightofHolts
requirementthatthegovernmentactuallyproveitsaffirmativedefense,the
federalgovernmentsdecisiontoputonevenlessevidencethanArkansas
didmayprovedispositive.
Fourth,whetherothergovernmentshavebeenabletoofferthe
accommodationwillbeafactorindecidingwhetherthedefendant
governmenthasusedtheleastrestrictivemeans:whensomanyprisons

offeranaccommodation,aprisonmust,ataminimum,offerpersuasive
reasonswhyitbelievesthatitmusttakeadifferentcourse,andthe
Departmentfailedtomakethatshowinghere.RLUIPA,however,
demandsmuchmore.Thiswillalsolikelybedecisiveinprisonkosher
litigation,sincethevastmajorityofprisonsystemsprovidekosherdietary
accommodationswithease.
***

Inonesense,todaysdecisionamountstotheCourtssaying,Wereally
meantitwhenwesaiditthefirstthreetimes:throughouttheopinionthe
CourtsimplyrepeatspassagesfromLukumi,OCentro,andHobbyLobby.
Inanothersense,however,thisdecisionheraldsanewperiodofrigorous
enforcementoffederalcivilrightsstatutesconcerningreligiouspractices.
Governmentswoulddowelltotakenoteandseektoaccommodatereligious
practiceswheneverpossible.Andreligiousindividualsandinstitutions
shouldtakeheart:religiouslibertyisaliveandwellinAmerica.

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law,
a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has
also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Get the newsletter

Sign up for daily updates from
the Volokh Conspiracy.