Abstract
In building off of the Tenth Circuit’s recent Hobby Lobby decision, courts that address this important question in the future—including the Supreme Court— should pay heed to the Rowland decision’s application of the Dictionary Act. Those courts should focus closely on RFRA’s text and context. While that focus may not necessarily dictate that these companies ultimately succeed on the merits of their claims, courts will be led to at least two conclusions: for-profits are indeed “persons” within the meaning of RFRA; and the cost of incorporation in America is not the sacrifice of conscience.
Recommended Citation
Christensen, Jeremy M.
(2013)
"“The Word[] ‘Person’ . . . Includes Corporations”: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Protects Both For- and Nonprofit Corporations,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2013:
No.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2013/iss2/5