Compelling Interests and Substantial Burdens: The Adjudication of Religious Free Exercise Claims in U.S. State Appellate Courts

Conflicts occasionally arise between individuals’ religious obligations and requirements of the state. In America, these conflicts are often resolved in the courts. A major debate over religious freedom in America centers on whether exemptions to acts of government which may interfere with people’s free exercise of religion are permissible. This article employs multivariate statistical analysis to model how the use of different legal tests to resolve free exercise disputes is linked to variation in likelihoods of claimant success in state appellate courts between 1997 and 2011. Claims adjudicated with balancing tests, such as those mandated by state and federal religious freedom “restoration†legislation, were more likely to lead to decisions favorable to religious free exercise claimants than those adjudicated with rational basis tests. Religious minorities’ claims are generally less likely to prevail than members of more common faiths, and claims brought by formal organizations are more likely to succeed than those brought by individuals.