United States Supreme Court Approach to First Amendment Freedom of Religion in Response to the COVID Pandemic
Delaine Russell Swenson
Faculty of Law, Canon Law and Administration, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0781-0765
Abstract
The 2020-21 Covid 19 Pandemic has raised many legal challenges as governments world-wide have struggled to deal with the public health and safety challenges of Covid. At the center of many of these decisions is the need to balance public health protections against other rights that have been infringed by legislation related to Covid Pandemic restrictions. One of the most important rights that have been implicated by Covid restrictions in the United States has been in the area of restrictions on religious worship which implicates the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in the United States Constitution. During the time of the Pandemic the United States Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of the United States Constitution has had to work to balance the interests of the government in protecting public health and safety with the right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court’s approach to these cases reflects the difficulties inherent in balancing two such important interests in difficult circumstances and also represents the reality of the shifting majority in the Court as a result of new Justices appointed under the administration of Donald Trump. The Court has transitioned from a majority that opposed restrictions on governmental action during COVID to a majority that is more willing to stop governmental action that is deemed to be in violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.
Keywords:
US Constitution, Freedom of Religion, COVID 19, Free Exercise Clause, US Supreme CourtReferences
“Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause.” Accessed April 2021. law2.umkc.edu.
“Religious Exemptions by state.” Retrieved April 1, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/27/most-states-have-religious-exemptions-to-covid-19-social-distancing-rules/.
Blackman, Josh. “The “Essential” Free Exercise Clause.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 4, no. 3 (2020): 637–760.
Kelso, R. Randall. “Standards of Review Under the Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: The “Base Plus Six” Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice.” Journal of Constitutional Law 4, Issue 2 (2002): 225–259.
Kong, Jiwoon. “Safeguarding the Free Exercise of Religion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Fordham Law Review 89, Issue 4 (2021): 1589–1633.
Liptak, Adam. “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87.” The New York Times. https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/local/2020/09/18/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/114083464/.
New York Times Corona Virus Cases. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act codified at 42 U.S.C §2000bb through 43 U.S.C. §2000bb-4.
Ruiz, Rebecca, Robert Gebeloff, Steve Eder, and Ben Protess. “A Conservative Agenda Unleashed on the Federal Courts.” New York Times, March 14, 2020.
Spece, Roy G. Jr., and David Yokum. “Scrutinizing Strict Scrutiny.” Vermont Law Review 40 (2015): 285–351.
State lawsuits about COVID. Retrieved April 1, 2021. https://ballotpedia.org/Lawsuits_about_state_actions_and_policies_in_response_to_the_conronavirus_(COVID)_pandemic,_2020.
Faculty of Law, Canon Law and Administration, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
Dr. Delaine R. Swenson, Professor, Faculty of Law, Canon Law and Administration, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin; correspondence address: Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland; e-mail: dswenson@kul.pl; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0781-0765.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0781-0765
