OA1256 - Will there ever be a draft again? Who knows. But if there is, what does one have to do to claim "conscientious objector” status? During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court grappled with how to apply that explicitly religious statutory exemption to people whose modern beliefs don’t seem to fit the religious mold that Congress defined in the 40s. Jenessa walks us through the court’s mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting that anyone could be an atheist, and the concurrence that calls it out.
Note: The analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in this episode is specific to the time period of these cases. It got more complicated in the 90s (see sources below).
Albert Q. Maisel, (May 6, 1946), Bedlam: Most US Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace, Life Magazine at 102-118.
1963: Even facially-neutral generally-applicable laws have to pass strict scrutiny if they burden the free exercise of religion
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)
1990: Never mind it’s rational basis
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
1993: Just kidding it’s strict scrutiny again
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
1997: Just kidding that only applies to the federal government
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
2000: Nope it’s strict scrutiny for state and local government again (well… if it relates to land use or prisons)
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!