Thread by @esbax

1/ A diverse group of amici and prominent legal scholars just urged #SCOTUS to take an important new religious freedom case. Here’s the story: [THREAD]

2/ Last term, 4 justices—Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—suggested it was time to reconsider #SCOTUS precedent that “drastically cut back on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause.”
supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf…

3/ Last month, @BecketLaw filed a cert petition that offers SCOTUS the chance to do just that: reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, and let a devout man have his career back. The case is Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors. s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…; becketlaw.org/case/ricks-v-i…

4/ Yesterday, 4 important amicus briefs joined the chorus.

5/ First, legal scholars—@tcbergmn , Chapman, Clark, Collett, @JohnInazu, Laycock, Lund, McConnell, @MStokesPaulsen, and @daskeel —joined a brief by @gibsondunn’s Tom Hungar, Ashley Johnson, and Travis Andrews.

6/ They argue that Smith is “ripe for reconsideration” and that “this case presents an excellent opportunity.” s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…

7/ They note that “Smith has been criticized from every side,” was a “departure” from precedent, breaks with the 1st Amend’s “original meaning,” has “never” been applied by SCOTUS to “another fully briefed free exercise claim,” and is “hardest” on minority religions.

8/ Picking up that last point is a brief by @ShearmanLaw’s Will Haun, on behalf of the #Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty (@HowardSlugh) and @asmauddinesq (author of When Islam is Not a Religion). s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…

9/ Quoting @JoshMBlackman, they argue that Smith turned free exercise into “more of a collective right” that leaves minorities at risk, and that even Smith’s defenders have admitted that its “logic . . . breaks down” due to the growing administrative state.

10/ A brief by Claremont’s @DrJohnEastman and Anthony Caso likewise warns that “Smith upheld majoritarian interference with an individual right,” and did so “unmoored from the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause.” s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…

11/ Finally, six major denominations joined a brief by @WilmerHale’s Daniel Kearney, Kevin Gallagher, Matthew Vigeant, Lydia Lichlyter, and Andrew Miller. s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/…

12/ They argued that the fears which animated Smith have “proven to be very much overblown,” and so courts can give free exercise the same “constitutional protection” other 1st Amend rights receive.

13/ Also yesterday, Idaho waived their BIO. Given the strong amicus support, one imagines the Court will call for a response.