Harvard Law & Policy Review

first amendment

by on

Dangerous Precedents in Hobby Lobby

by Noah Marks Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, holding 5-4 that religious owners of closely-held corporations are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act based on the 1993 Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito strains to emphasize the limited scope of the decision, claiming that it applies only to closely held companies, only to contraception, and only to this preexisting …

Continue Reading about Dangerous Precedents in Hobby Lobby →

by on

Free Exercise Clause Protection for Junk Science

By Tom Watts Today, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In this post, I examine an issue that the Court passed over: whether Hobby Lobby’s belief is actually religious. The Court presumed so, but their presumption was incorrect, and the issue is dispositive. This makes the Court’s decision wrong. The First Amendment protects religious freedom, but it does not provide protection to non-religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court observed in Wisconsin v. Yoder (a case that RFRA …

Continue Reading about Free Exercise Clause Protection for Junk Science →

by on

McCullen v. Coakley: “Something for Everyone”

By Ana Choi The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, holding that the Massachusetts statute creating a 35 feet buffer zone around abortion clinics is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Although the holding is unanimous, the majority opinion (written by C.J. Roberts and joined by JJ. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) and the two concurring opinions (one written by J. Scalia and joined by JJ. Kennedy and Thomas, the other written by J. Alito) reveal a …

Continue Reading about McCullen v. Coakley: “Something for Everyone” →