2021 JRCLS Religious Liberty Fellowship

Introduction

The J. Reuben Clark Law Society hosted this conference in Washington D.C. This conference focused on religious liberty in relation to the law. Speakers with experience in legislation and litigation discussed the importance of religious liberty and what could be done to promote standards of religious liberty in the United States and the rest of the world.

Summary Reports

Day 1

Steven Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas, outlined the historical evolution and legal challenges of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. He explained how courts have struggled with their interpretations, sometimes advancing and other times restricting religious freedom. Collis discussed the Smith test, which allows neutral and generally applicable laws to restrict religion, noting its persistence due to a lack of better alternatives. On the Establishment Clause, he critiqued its broad interpretation as prohibiting all government support of religion, emphasizing that it primarily ensures equal treatment of all religions. Collis concluded that education about these principles is vital for safeguarding religious freedoms.

James Sonne, a Stanford Law professor and founder of its Religious Liberty Clinic, highlighted the clinic’s role in training students to address real-world religious freedom cases. He stressed that working on less-publicized, everyday cases fosters a deeper understanding of religious liberty and bridges divides by encouraging advocacy for diverse beliefs. Sonne emphasized that religious freedom connects to human identity and urged collaboration to protect it across communities.

Lauren McCormack, Executive Director of Governmental Relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, shared insights from her work on Capitol Hill and with organizations like the International Religious Freedom Caucus. She discussed the global importance of advancing religious freedom and cautioned against hastily endorsing legislation without understanding its implications, such as the Equality Act. McCormack underscored the power of personal stories in inspiring action to protect religious liberty locally and globally.

Matt McGhie, U.S. Senate Assistant Legislative Counsel, described Congress’s role in identifying and addressing violations of religious freedom. While acknowledging Congress’s limitations, he emphasized the significance of grassroots efforts, encouraging individuals to focus on areas where they can make the greatest impact. Protecting freedom of conscience, he argued, is a universal human right that requires collective effort.

Celeste Malloy, counsel to Representative Chris Stewart, described human dignity and religious freedom as complementary rights. She praised the Utah Compromise as a model for balancing these rights and expressed optimism that the U.S. is ready for broader discussions on finding common ground. Malloy urged individuals to advocate for religious freedom and human dignity in areas where their contributions can be most effective.

Tyler Deaton, Senior Advisor to the American Unity Fund, shared his work on the Fairness for All Act, which seeks to protect both religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. He emphasized bridging the “empathy gap” between opposing groups by fostering understanding and mutual respect. Deaton advocated for leveraging data and successful compromises to build common ground, asserting that coexistence under the law is achievable.

Judge Ryan D. Nelson of the Ninth Circuit discussed the ministerial exception, which grants religious organizations autonomy in choosing their instructors. He criticized over-cautious public organizations that restrict religious expression to avoid perceived establishment of religion. Nelson stressed the importance of clarifying the Establishment Clause to prevent unnecessary restrictions and ensure continued religious freedom.

Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel at Becket, outlined Becket’s mission to advance religious freedom through impactful litigation. He advocated for a historical approach to the Establishment Clause to avoid future discrimination and encouraged individuals to address local needs, especially for religious minorities, to make a meaningful difference.

Asma Uddin, an Inclusive America Project Fellow, highlighted the importance of educating the public on religious freedom, which is often misunderstood. She emphasized fostering interfaith dialogue and collaboration to promote unity and protect this fundamental right. Uddin encouraged individuals to find their niche in advocacy and to focus on commonalities between faiths to advance religious liberty.

Simmer Singh, a Sikh U.S. Army officer, shared his experience in Singh v. Carter, where he fought for the right to wear a beard and turban while in uniform. He credited Becket for supporting his case, which set a precedent for others seeking religious accommodations in the military. Singh emphasized that defending religious expression is vital for all citizens and urged continued vigilance in protecting this right.

Sister Constance Carolyn Veit, communications director for the Little Sisters of the Poor, shared her organization’s legal battle with Becket to avoid providing contraceptives under Obamacare mandates. She stressed the importance of engaging the public and fostering positive dialogue about religious freedom. Veit encouraged maintaining a Christlike attitude in advocacy and urged persistence in defending fundamental rights despite challenges.

Day 2

Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, discussed recent court cases that seem to undermine religious freedom. He cited the Supreme Court case Lukumi, which asserted that the government can restrict religious practices for any legitimate government interest, a decision Laycock argued was harmful to religious expression. He proposed that religion should receive the same level of protection as the most favored secular interests, warning that vague standards for restricting religious practices are dangerous and need to be revised to offer greater protection for religious freedom.

Gene Schaerr, a veteran litigator, shared his insights from his time with the U.S. Supreme Court. He stated that the Court has generally been a strong protector of religious freedom, particularly during the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. However, he acknowledged that religious freedom issues are becoming increasingly controversial. Schaerr emphasized the need for consensus in judicial decisions on religious freedom, despite political divides, and underscored the universality of the right to religious liberty.

Dallan Flake, a professor at Ohio Northern University School of Law, focused on the history and importance of religious accommodations in the workplace. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits religious discrimination in employment, Flake argued that current standards for religious accommodations are insufficient and often favor employers over employees. He contended that the courts are hostile to religious accommodations and called for legislative changes to compel employers to better accommodate their employees' religious beliefs. Flake encouraged citizens to push Congress and the Supreme Court to protect these rights and urged employees to assert their religious accommodation rights through the courts, concluding that workplaces would benefit by allowing employees to express their authentic selves through religious accommodations.