Document Type
Essay
Publication Title
Journal of Law and Religion
Publication Date
2022
Volume
37
First Page
9
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2021.82
Abstract
This essay explores judicial responses to legal restrictions on worship during the COVID-19 pandemic and draws two lessons, one comparative and one relating specifically to U.S. law. As a comparative matter, courts across the globe have approached the problem in essentially the same way, through intuition and balancing. This has been the case regardless of what formal test applies, the proportionality test outside the United States, which expressly calls for judges to weigh the relative costs and benefits of a restriction, or the Employment Division v. Smith test inside the United States, which rejects judicial line-drawing and balancing in favor of predictable results. Judges have reached different conclusions about the legality of restrictions, of course, but doctrinal nuances have made little apparent difference. With respect to the United States specifically, the pandemic has revealed deep divisions about religion and religious freedom, among other things—divisions that have inevitably influenced judicial attitudes toward restrictions on worship. The COVID-19 crisis has revealed a cultural and political rift that makes consensual resolution of conflicts over religious freedom problematic, and perhaps impossible, even during a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Included in
Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Comments
The version of the essay appearing in this repository is a preprint. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution or re-use. The published version of the essay is available from Cambridge University Press at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/abs/law-religion-and-the-covid19-crisis/7482DB669B957216AF7FF643825C18E9