The Law, Rights, and Religion Project Responds to the Reintroduction of the First Amendment Defense Act in the U.S. Senate

The Law, Rights, and Religion Project Responds to the Reintroduction of the First Amendment Defense Act in the U.S. Senate

March 8, 2018

Access a .pdf of this Press Release, here

Professor Franke’s testimony can be found here

The Law, Rights, and Religion Project is dismayed that the deceptively named “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) was reintroduced into the U.S. Senate today by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Not only is this bill unnecessary to the protection of religious liberty in the United States, its language would be harmful to the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

Columbia Law Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project, testified against the First Amendment Defense Act on behalf of 20 leading legal scholars when it was pending in Congress in 2016. In her testimony before the House Governmental Oversight Committee she provided an in-depth analysis of the meaning and likely effects of the proposed legislation, were it to become law. The Law, Rights, and Religion Project was particularly compelled to provide testimony to the Committee because the first legislative finding set out in FADA declares that: “Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be addressed through legislation.” As leading legal scholars we must correct this statement: we do not concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real, nor do we hold the view that any such conflict should be addressed through legislation. On the contrary, we maintained that religious liberty rights are already well protected in the U.S. Constitution and in existing federal and state legislation, rendering FADA both unnecessary and harmful.

The Act purports to protect free exercise of religion and prevent discrimination, yet in fact it risks unsettling a well-considered constitutional balance between religious liberty, the prohibition on government endorsement of or entanglement with religion, and other equally fundamental rights.

This legislation failed to come to a vote and died in Committee in 2016. It should receive the same fate today.