The Supreme Court decided an important First Amendment case this past week. But it wasn't Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. On Thursday, a unanimous Court struck down a Massachusetts law that restricted peaceful expression on public streets and sidewalks outside of abortion clinics. And those who care about religious liberty should know at least as much about that case, McCullen v. Coakley, as they do about the more narrowly decided case with which the Court ended its term.

To be sure, Hobby Lobby is an important decision. The Court rightly concluded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects certain kinds of corporations from federal laws that substantially burden the exercise of religion. As Justice Alito wrote for the majority, "Congress enacted RFRA in 1993 in order to provide very broad protections for religious liberty."

But this also means Hobby Lobby was decided based on a federal law, not the Constitution. From the Court's point of view, the case had nothing to do with the First Amendment—and if it had, Hobby Lobby and its owners might not have prevailed. Indeed, the reason that Congress overwhelmingly passed RFRA in the first place (97-3 in the Senate, by acclamation in the House) was a disturbing Supreme Court decision in 1990, Employment Division v. Smith, which lowered the First Amendment's protections for religious liberty. The decision in Smith held that the First Amendment provided no special protection for religious liberty claims brought against "generally applicable laws."

Since most laws (possibly including the contraceptive mandate at issue in the Hobby Lobby case) are generally applicable, Smith in effect meant that the government could prevail over ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.

May
Subscribe to CT and get one year free.
Read These Next
Current Issue
Gleanings: May 2017 Subscriber Access Only
Important developments in the church and the world (as they appeared in our May issue).
RecommendedTrump’s Religious Liberty Order Doesn’t Answer Most Evangelicals’ Prayers
Trump’s Religious Liberty Order Doesn’t Answer Most Evangelicals’ Prayers
Prayer breakfast pledge to ‘totally destroy’ Johnson Amendment comes up shy; conscience exemptions from LGBT anti-discrimination rules missing.
TrendingThe Theology Beneath the Trump-Comey Conflict
The Theology Beneath the Trump-Comey Conflict
How the former FBI director’s interest in Reinhold Niebuhr shaped his approach to political power.
Editor's PickSix Ways Men Can Support Women’s Discipleship
Six Ways Men Can Support Women’s Discipleship
Male clergy and laity who want to enable women’s ministry often don't know how to get involved or what to do.
Christianity Today
The First Amendment Decision Nobody's Talking About
hide thisAccess The Archives

In the Archives

July 2014

To continue reading, subscribe now for full print and digital access.