But that reverence does not extend to one of his most influential opinions: the plurality decision he authored in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990. In Smith, Scalia concluded that courts could not use the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to carve out exemptions from “neutral laws of general applicability”—in that case, Oregon’s criminalization of peyote. The ruling drew criticism from religious groups across the country and led to a wave of religious freedom legislation that sought to provide protections that the court refused to enforce on its own. Read Full Article »
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Take Aim at Scalia
Just
ice Antonin Scalia, who died four years ago last week, is among the most celebrated figures in the conservative legal movement. George Mason University’s law school now bears his name. His former colleagues on the Supreme Court frequently cite his writings, particularly when it comes to interpreting statutes. President Donald Trump, who often vowed to appoint judges “in the mold of Scalia,” posthumously awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018.
But that reverence does not extend to one of his most influential opinions: the plurality decision he authored in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990. In Smith, Scalia concluded that courts could not use the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to carve out exemptions from “neutral laws of general applicability”—in that case, Oregon’s criminalization of peyote. The ruling drew criticism from religious groups across the country and led to a wave of religious freedom legislation that sought to provide protections that the court refused to enforce on its own. Read Full Article »
But that reverence does not extend to one of his most influential opinions: the plurality decision he authored in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990. In Smith, Scalia concluded that courts could not use the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to carve out exemptions from “neutral laws of general applicability”—in that case, Oregon’s criminalization of peyote. The ruling drew criticism from religious groups across the country and led to a wave of religious freedom legislation that sought to provide protections that the court refused to enforce on its own. Read Full Article »
Comment
Show comments
Hide Comments
