This article analyzes conservative Supreme Court justices’ recent use of history and tradition in First Amendment religious liberty cases. It argues that these justices have failed to articulate a persuasive rationale as to why exactly the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings and that they have failed to adequately show that history supports their “no-coercion” construction of what constitutes a prohibited establishment. Concerning the Free Exercise Clause, the court’s conservatives have dismissed history by disregarding historical practices that do not conform to their approach to the text. The court’s use, misuse, and nonuse of history cannot help but give the impression that policy preferences—more than history or the actual original understanding of the First Amendment—have determined recent church-state decisions.
Abington School District v. Schempp. 1963. 374 U.S. 203.
2.
American Legion v. American Humanist Association. 2019. 588 U.S. 29.
3.
BalkinJack M.2007. Abortion and original meaning. Constitutional Commentary24 (2): 291–352.
4.
BradleyGerard V.1991. Beguiled: Free exercise exemptions and the siren song of liberalism. Hofstra Law Review20(2): 245–319.
5.
Carson v. Makin. 2022. 596 U.S. 767.
6.
ChapmanNathan S.McConnellMichael W.2023. Agreeing to disagree: How the Establishment Clause protects religious diversity and freedom of conscience. Oxford University Press.
7.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. 1993. 508 U.S. 520.
8.
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union. 1989. 472 U.S. 573.
9.
DeGirolamiMarc O.2015. The traditions of American constitutional law. Notre Dame Law Review95(3): 1123–1182.
10.
DeGirolamiMarc O.2020. First Amendment traditionalism. Washington University Law Review97(6): 1653–1686.
11.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 2022. 597 U.S. 215.
12.
DrakemanDonald L.2009. Church, state, and original intent. Cambridge University Press.
13.
DworkinRonald. 1997. Comment in A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law. 1st edition, by Antonin Scalia. ed. GutmannAmy. Princeton University Press.
14.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. 1990. 494 U.S. 872.
15.
EpsteinLeePosnerEric A.2022. The Roberts Court and the transformation of constitutional protections for religion: A statistical portrait. Supreme Court Review2021: 315–347.
16.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. 2020. 591 U.S. 464.
17.
Everson v. Board of Education. 1947. 330 U.S. 1.
18.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. 2021. 593 U.S. 522.
19.
HamburgerPhilip A.1992. A constitutional right of religious exemption: An historical perspective. George Washington Law Review60(4): 915–948.
20.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. 2022. 597 U.S. 507.
21.
KurlandPhilip B.LernerRalph, eds. 1987. The founders’ constitution. University of Chicago Press.
22.
Lee v. Weisman. 1992. 505 U.S. 577.
23.
Lemon v. Kurtzman. 1971. 403 U.S. 602.
24.
Locke v. Davey. 2004. 540 U.S. 712.
25.
MadisonJames. 2006 [1787]. Vices of the political system of the United States; April 1787. In Selected writings of James Madison, ed. KetchamRalph. Hackett Publishing Company.
26.
MadisonJames. 2009 [c. 1820]. Detached memoranda. In The papers of James Madison, Retirement series, 4 March 1817 – 31 January 1820, vol. 1, ed. MatternDavid B.StaggJ. C. A.JohnsonMary ParkeColonyAnne Mandeville. University of Virginia Press.
27.
Marsh v. Chambers. 1983. 463 U.S. 783.
28.
McConnellMichael W.1990. The origins and historical understanding of free exercise of religion. Harvard Law Review103(7): 1409–1517.
29.
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. 2005. 545 U.S. 844.
30.
McDaniel v. Paty. 1978. 435 U.S. 618.
31.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2008. The original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause: The evidence from the first Congress. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy31(3): 1083–1120.
32.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2009. God and the founders: Madison, Washington, and Jefferson. Cambridge University Press.
33.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2015. Church and state in the founding-era state constitutions. American Political Thought4(1): 1–38.
34.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2016. Two concepts of religious liberty: The natural rights and moral autonomy approaches to the free exercise of religion. American Political Science Review110(2): 369–381.
35.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2022. Religious liberty and the American founding: Natural rights and the original meanings of the First Amendment religion clauses. University of Chicago Press.
36.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2023. What is an establishment of religion? And what does disestablishment require?Constitutional Commentary38(2): 219–261.
37.
MuñozVincent PhillipRhodesKate Hardiman. 2023. Constructing the Establishment Clause. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal54(2): 387–453.
38.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992. 505 U.S. 833.
39.
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.
40.
Sherbert v. Verner. 1963. 374 U.S. 398.
41.
Shurtleff v. City of Boston. 2022. 596 U.S. 243.
42.
SolumLawrence B.2011. What is originalism? The evolution of contemporary originalist theory. In The challenge of originalism: Theories of constitutional interpretation, ed. HuscroftGrantMillerBradley W.Cambridge University Press.
43.
Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway. 2014. 572 U.S. 566.
44.
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. 2017. 582 U.S. 449.
45.
United States v. Rahimi. 2024. 602 U.S. 680.
46.
Wallace v. Jaffree. 1985. 472 U.S. 38.
47.
WhittingtonKeith E.2013. Originalism: A critical introduction. Fordham Law Review82(2): 375–409.
