Daniel Kazhdan


This Comment synthesizes current United States religious freedom jurisprudence and argues that it is inadequate for protecting religious practice. As currently applied, the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act do not sufficiently consider the perspective of the burdened religion. Religious freedom laws exist to navigate between the needs of society and the needs of religious participants. An evaluation of any prospective law should therefore consider both sides' needs. This Comment presents a framework for considering the severity of the burden that a law places on a religion and argues that the severity of the burden should be a factor in determining whether a secular law should be upheld.



Link to publisher version (DOI)