Document Type

Article

Publication Title

University of Illinois Law Review Online

Publication Date

2016

Abstract

This short essay argues that a secular test is available to determine what constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It takes issue with the Court’s approach that is more deferential to the claimant, and with approaches offered by Professors Sepinwall and Helfand. It resists Sepinwall’s argument that proximity in law tracks a subjective sense of complicity, and it takes issue with Helfand’s argument that examining the substantiality of burden would implicate the religious question doctrine.

Share

COinS