
The interplay between religious freedoms and civil rights continues to shape the legal landscape, prompting discussions on how these principles coexist within the framework of American jurisprudence. As the Supreme Court grapples with these issues, cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and Employment Division v. Smith bring into focus the delicate balance between adhering to constitutional originalism and addressing contemporary societal shifts.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
The Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia left its mark on the discussion around religious freedoms and same-sex couples. Philadelphia pulled back from its agreement with Catholic Social Services (CSS) because CSS refused to certify same-sex couples as adoptive parents. The case nodded to the balance between free exercise and anti-discrimination laws.
The Court found a middle path, hinting at potential shifts with justices eyeing to chip away at Employment Division v. Smith. The Smith decision, from Scalia, placed secular regulations outside the scope of judicial exemption. The Fulton case had three justices ready to overrule Smith, suggesting a shift in terrain.
Justice Alito and others proposed overruling Smith, arguing that the Free Exercise Clause historically catered to exemptions. By holding that Philadelphia didn’t apply its rules uniformly, the court granted a win to CSS. Yet, the case sowed seeds of future challenges for same-sex couples and religious organizations alike.
Tensions hover at this intersection. Religious institutions feel threatened; supporters of same-sex marriage eye potential hits on their ground. The spirits of originalism and its skeptics prepare for the next round in this ongoing judicial show.

Employment Division v. Smith
In 1990, Justice Scalia laid down the law around religious freedoms with Employment Division v. Smith. Two Native American men lost their jobs after ingesting peyote in a religious ceremony. When they sought unemployment benefits, Oregon denied them.
Scalia made it clear that the Free Exercise Clause wasn’t a pass to sidestep secular laws. His argument was that if laws apply to everyone and aren’t aimed at any one religious group, there’s no reason for religious exemptions. This stance was wrapped in the originalist doctrine that judges shouldn’t meddle with policy.
Not everyone applauded this interpretation. Critics argued that it drained the autonomy religious groups had grown accustomed to. Today, Smith’s legacy is debated, with both supporters and opponents discussing its place in the constitutional universe. Some contend that reintroducing the Sherbert test could provide more judicial wiggle room in balancing state interests with religious freedoms.
As rumblings continue across courtroom floors, there’s an undercurrent pushing for Smith’s undoing. While originalists defend it, others cite democratic evolution as a reason to adapt. Whether architecting a return to Sherbert, or cementing Smith’s doctrine, this ongoing debate defines much of today’s judicial landscape.

Originalism and Judicial Power
Originalism, the art of interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning, is championed by conservative stalwarts like Justice Scalia and carried forward by Justice Alito. At its core, originalism claims to preserve the founding fathers’ intentions from modern whims.
Justice Scalia viewed judges who stray from the original intent as unshackled cannonballs rewriting legislative scripts. In his eyes, a judge’s role is to declare what the law is, not what they believe it ought to be. This exists as a moral anchorโthe Constitution as a bedrock, immune to societal change.
Justice Alito brings his historical toolkit, asserting that some phrases demand nuanced, historically informed interpretations. He’s the type who might claim the Constitution whispered its real ancestor-touted intentions to him.
Originalism aims to wield judicial restraint over a “living Constitution” approach. Scalia and Alito saw the judiciary’s task as one of stability over experimentation. The logic? If we’re reimagining every constitutional element, the fabric holding the republic together risks unraveling.
But when religious freedoms butt heads with secular demands, how does sticking to original intent steer through those choppy waters? These questions have sparked debates, especially as society evolves at light speed, sometimes leaving originalist doctrines to play catch-up.
Whether we champion Scalia’s staunch stand or Alito’s adapted approach, originalism isn’t simply a judicial propositionโit’s a philosophical battleground, revealing not just the past, but future horizons of American jurisprudence.

Amy Coney Barrett’s Judicial Philosophy
Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s judicial philosophy is rooted in originalism. Her approach places significant weight on words as they were understood when the Constitution was written. This stance can raise eyebrows when confronting modern-day issues like workplace discrimination or religious freedoms.
Barrett’s adherence to originalism leaves some wondering about its impact on cases involving gender identity and sexual orientation. Her previous comments about Title IX not covering transgender individuals spark speculation on how she might interpret protections under newer civil rights legislation.
On religious freedom, Barrett aligns with those who favor providing religious institutions protection against secular legislative constraints. Her connections, such as speaking with the Blackstone Legal Fellowship under the Alliance Defending Freedom group, offer clues regarding her views.
For Barrett, the Constitution resonates with established meanings. Her judicial philosophy plays a pivotal role in balancing the Free Exercise Clause and secular regulations. Her alignment with originalist principles paves a path back to Scalia-esque approaches where state interests aren’t quickly cast aside for religious exemptions unless the legislative body says otherwise.
Barrett’s originalism isn’t just an interpretationโit’s a conviction permeating through decisions impacting civil rights and religious liberties. With her on the bench, the Constitution’s literalists have a reliable ally tackling modern chapters in this enduring American legal saga.
Bostock v. Clayton County
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County shook up workplace discrimination and LGBTQ rights. The case asked whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sex, could include sexual orientation and gender identity.
In a decision penned by Justice Gorsuch, the court read ‘sex’ in Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Gorsuch, typically an originalist, sidestepped around traditional originalism boundariesโinfusing modern interpretations into an originalist approach.
This decision changed workplace discrimination laws. Employers now face stricter anti-discrimination efforts for LGBTQ individuals. Critics argue this represents a backdoor expansion of what the framers intended. To them, Gorsuch’s textualist approach veered into liberal territory.
For many, the decision carries the weight of overdue justice. Under the newly interpreted Title VII, individuals are more protected against workplace discrimination.
As this chapter turns, the dialogue echoes beyond the courtrooms, casting questions into businesses and public opinion. Can this decision stand firm? Will future courts uphold or challenge this interpretation? These are the questions Bostock leaves us pondering.

At the heart of these legal debates lies a fundamental question: how do we uphold religious freedom while ensuring civil rights progress? This ongoing dialogue challenges us to consider the role of originalism in interpreting the Constitution amidst evolving societal norms, underscoring the dynamic nature of American law.