there is no principled way to interpret the law to make the protection of religious practices depend on the level of support the practice enjoys.
In Holt v. Hobbs, the Court strictly interpreted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to require an Arkansas prison to permit a Muslim prisoner to grow a six-inch beard.
In Murphy v. Collier, the Court unanimously stayed the execution of a Buddhist prisoner who made a timely claim for the presence of his spiritual advisor at the execution
It is also both unprincipled and unworkable to interpret the Constitution or statutes to protect only minority religions. Neither the Free Exercise Clause nor any statute that provides particular solicitude for religious practice, like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), makes any distinction between majority and minority religions. Whate...
Nor is it practicable for the Court to gauge how much support a religion or religious practice has. The support varies from state to state. Mormons may be powerful in Utah, but not at all in New York.
Glasp is a social web highlighter that people can highlight and organize quotes and thoughts from the web, and access other like-minded people’s learning.