Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2016

Abstract

As the Supreme Court rev1s1ts the clash between religious belief and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the Zubik1 case, it is worth mulling over a key phrase in the law that governs that clash: '·substantial burden." According to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the government must-provided it does not meet certain other conditions, such as showing a compelling interest-make an accommodation if it places a ''substantial burden'' on a person's religious exercise.2 If the question in the Hobby Lobby case was whether a for-profit corporation could be a ''person" that ''exercised religion,"3 the question the Court now faces is whether the government has in fact ''substantially burdened" some religious non-profits in trying to accommodate their objection to the contraceptive mandate.4

But what is a ''substantial burden"? Or to put it another way, what makes a burden substantial? What follows is my best effort to provide clarity-in the form of a primer-as to the meaning of "substantial burden" under RFRA.

Download

Share

COinS