Would regulations mandating insurance coverage for blood transfusions or psychiatric treatment survive religious objections under RFRA? What about laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, or gender, or sexual orientation, or cohabitation outside marriage? What of government-imposed fees that are separate from the general tax system but arguably result in burdens on religious practice?

Unfortunately, while he too denies that today’s decision will have broad and sweeping results, Justice Kennedy does not give any other examples in his concurrence of how the decision may be limited.

Justice Kennedy’s Injudicious Joinder

Though Justice Kennedy failed to differentiate himself from the majority on that point, as explained above he did appear to disagree with the majority on two issues: whether the government established a compelling interest, and what the least-restrictive alternative supporting the Court’s ruling against the government was.

In such circumstances, a Justice normally only joins a lead opinion in part, if at all. Yet, for some reason, Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion in its entirety.

More: Hobby Lobby’s Illusory Limits, and Justice Kennedy’s Injudicious Joinder

Hobby Lobby’s Illusory Limits, and Justice Kennedy’s Injudicious Joinder | ACS acslaw.org