Another Hobby Lobby post

In my contribution to the SCOTUSBlog symposium on Hobby Lobby, I address the Court's "substantial burden" reasoning and pick out a few footnotes of interest. Some more general thoughts also, including this:

For analytic purposes, it is convenient to break down the Hobby Lobby decision on RFRA into three parts: (1) Who can bring a claim under RFRA? (2) How does the “substantial burden” inquiry proceed? (3) How strict is strict scrutiny under RFRA?  In each of these three areas, Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court sets forth an answer and analysis that should ensure greater solicitude for religious liberty in the administrative state.  Federal government lawyers advising agencies on the regulatory implementation of statutory schemes that hold the potential to impinge on religious freedom should take three clear lessons from Hobby Lobby: (1) The Supreme Court will enforce RFRA’s comprehensive coverage as broadly as its capacious text reaches; (2) the “substantial burden” trigger for RFRA’s protections should be understood from the point of view of the sincere religious believer asserting a burden, with no “attenuation” escape hatch allowing legal recharacterization of these beliefs by government lawyers or federal courts; and (3) strict scrutiny under RFRA really is strict.