This essay reviews Professor Marci Hamilton's God vs. the Gavel (2005). The essay surveys several areas of recent free exercise controversy in light of Hamilton's defense of a robust "harm principle" as the proper analytical framework for free exercise analysis. It then takes the example of religiously based insanity defenses as an illustration of the theoretical difficulties that arise at the intersection of religious belief and criminal law.
Caleb E. Mason,
Faith, Harm, and Neutrality: Some Complexities of Free Exercise Law,
Duq. L. Rev.
Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol44/iss2/4