Religion today offers plaintiffs a ready path to disobey laws without consequence. Examples of such disobedience abound. In the past few years alone, courts have enjoined vaccine mandates, invalidated stay-at-home orders, and set aside antidiscrimination laws protecting same-sex couples. During the 2021–2022 Term, plaintiffs relied once again on free exercise to subvert laws governing public education, capital punishment, and school prayer. Some hospitals have begun denying fertility treatment to LGBTQ employees on this same basis. How did religion become a skeleton key for lawbreaking without repercussion? The conventional wisdom is that, after decades of neglect, the Supreme Court finally began to take seriously the government’s burden in free exercise cases. When the Court now says that the government must prove its laws serve compelling interests and are narrowly tailored, it actually means it. But that is just part of the story. Courts are not only making the government’s job harder. They are also making the plaintiff’s job easier. Before courts apply strict scrutiny, plaintiffs must show that their religious practices are sincere. Courts and scholars point to sincerity as serving an all-important gatekeeping function: letting in claims of genuine religious exercise and keeping out non-meritorious requests for accommodation. Yet sincerity is in practice an empty requirement. A systematic review of nearly 350 federal appellate cases—the first such analysis of its kind—reveals that the Supreme Court has never, in the past thirty years, found a single plaintiff to be insincere. Federal appellate courts, likewise, have found plaintiffs sincere 93% of the time (compare that to employment discrimination and ADA cases, where plaintiffs carry their burden just 27% and 60% of the time, respectively). And who is insincere? Pro se plaintiffs. Per the data, parties proceeding pro se are almost 800% more likely to be found insincere than someone with counsel. The only population without a license for disobedience, it turns out, is the already marginalized. These shortcomings matter. Without appropriate tools to discern genuine religious practice from opportunistic litigation, free exercise becomes an open invitation to true believers and make-believers alike to break the law. With religious exemptions becoming an increasingly visible part of state, federal, and international law, that comes with clear costs: to the rule of law, to the credibility of true believers, and to the public. To prevent religion as disobedience from running amok, it is time to start taking sincerity seriously.
Citation
Xiao Wang, Religion as Disobedience, 76 Vanderbilt Law Review, 999–1065 (2023).
More in This Category
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
More
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
More
There is one group that the court does not put into an identity straitjacket—those claiming religious exemptions.
More
The demise of Roe v. Wade has raised a host of religious liberty questions that were submerged prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v...
More
Matthew Waxman
Congress may want to prevent nuclear command and control from going fully autonomous. Would such a law be constitutional?
More
On Thursday, the Supreme Court subtly transformed the rights of religious workers in America. Under the guise of “clarifying” a nearly 50-year-old...
More
Looking for a federal law to be declared unconstitutional? Religion may well be your best bet -- and that's true regardless of how "real" your...
More
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
More
When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a...
More
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the Supreme Court distinguished between different kinds of reliance interests — some that would...
More
This story begins with one parent who took his demands for equal educational opportunity for his children all the way to the highest court of our land...
More
Life tenure for the federal judiciary doesn’t promote judicial independence or the development of law as the Framers expected, and should be repealed...
More
Do legal concepts alter how we understand the past and present? The jurisprudence of race suggests that they do. For several decades, federal courts...
More
A new study shows that lower court judges, and especially conservatives, are using senior status as a loophole to ensure their replacement by a like...
More
A division exists between scholars who claim that Congress made only limited delegations to executive officials in the early Republic, and those who...
More
Quinta Jurecic
In 2018, Congress rightly highlighted the problem of sex trafficking, which is a moral abomination and vicious scourge. It condemned sites like...
More
Mark Tushnet
The idea of judicial dialogue entered into scholarly discussion in the late twentieth century and is used in connection with different phenomena at...
More