1991Michigan Law ReviewRequires access

Structural Free Exercise

Mary Ann Glendon, Raul F. Yanes

Open publisher page 63 citations

Abstract

In Part I of this article, we analyze the development of case law interpreting the religious freedom language of the First Amendment from the 1940s to the eve of the rights revolution as a casualty of the piecemeal approach to incorporation, compounded by a series of judicial lapses and oversights. Part II deals with the fate of the Religion Clause in the era of the rights revolution, when the free exercise and establishment provisions were deployed in the service of a constitutional agenda to which they were, in themselves, largely peripheral. The current period of doctrinal change is the subject of Part Ill, where the implications of the emerging deferential approach for religious freedom are ~explored. In Part IV we argue that a holistic, structural approach to the text is necessary if the Court is to develop a workable, coherent, church-state jurisprudence for our pluralistic, liberal, democratic society. If rigid separationism is not to be succeeded by an equally mechanical form of deference, the Court must now grapple seriously with the formidable interpretive problems that were overlooked or given short shrift in the past. The task is an urgent one, for it concerns nothing less than the cultural foundations of our experiment in ordered liberty.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In Part I of this article, we analyze the development of case law interpreting the religious freedom language of the First Amendment from the 1940s to the eve of the rights revolution as a casualty of the piecemeal approach to incorporation, compounded by a series of judicial lapses and oversights. Part II deals with the fate of the Religion Clause in the era of the rights revolution, when the free exercise and establishment provisions were deployed in the service of a constitutional agenda to which they were, in themselves, largely peripheral. The current period of doctrinal change is the subject of Part Ill, where the implications of the emerging deferential approach for religious freedom are ~explored. In Part IV we argue that a holistic, structural approach to the text is necessary if the Court is to develop a workable, coherent, church-state jurisprudence for our pluralistic, liberal, democratic society. If rigid separationism is not to be succeeded by an equally mechanical form of deference, the Court must now grapple seriously with the formidable interpretive problems that were overlooked or given short shrift in the past. The task is an urgent one, for it concerns nothing less than the cultural foundations of our experiment in ordered liberty.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 63 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In Part I of this article, we analyze the development of case law interpreting the religious freedom language of the First Amendment from the 1940s to the eve of the rights revolution as a casualty of the piecemeal approach to incorporation, compounded by a series of judicial lapses and oversights. Part II deals with the fate of the Religion Clause in the era of the rights revolution, when the free exercise and establishment provisions were deployed in the service of a constitutional agenda to which they were, in themselves, largely peripheral. The current period of doctrinal change is the subject of Part Ill, where the implications of the emerging deferential approach for religious freedom are ~explored. In Part IV we argue that a holistic, structural approach to the text is necessary if the Court is to develop a workable, coherent, church-state jurisprudence for our pluralistic, liberal, democratic society. If rigid separationism is not to be succeeded by an equally mechanical form of deference, the Court must now grapple seriously with the formidable interpretive problems that were overlooked or given short shrift in the past. The task is an urgent one, for it concerns nothing less than the cultural foundations of our experiment in ordered liberty.

Key concepts: Free Exercise Clause, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Medicine, Political science, Law, First amendment, Supreme court

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Structural Free Exercise — Research Paper | ScholarLens