by Georgina Sugrue

This summer, I worked as a research assistant for Dean Greg Sisk, co-director of the Murphy Institute, analyzing data for his ongoing empirical study on religious liberty issues in the courts.  The study began in 1998 with a null hypothesis which states that partisan appointment has no effect on free exercise claims.  So far, the null hypothesis has prevailed, but the study continues as research is divided into ten-year increments. At this time, Sisk’s work is particularly interested in whether judges displayed more bias during years with high COVID-19 case counts. Our summer project specifically focused on how district court judges handled constitutional claims from individuals with diverse religious backgrounds in 2020.   

The research process required coding for the different factors raised in the case, along with specific facts. I began by noting the court, date of decision, the judge’s name, and the overall outcome of the case (whether the religious claimant won on any claims). My focus was specifically on 2020, so I made sure to note if COVID-19 and the resulting restrictions played a role in the claim. I then noted whether the person who believed their religious rights were infringed upon was in court as a plaintiff or as a defendant. Next, I identified the claimant’s religion, which often required additional research beyond the opinion to determine the specific denomination of the individual or organization. I reviewed cases from a variety of traditions, including Catholic, American Baptist, Lutheran, Unitarian, Jewish, Native American, Rastafarian, and others.    

A more detailed analysis was necessary to identify the type of religious claim involved and whether the individual prevailed or lost on it. These issues included the Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, the Free Speech Clause, the Equal Access Act, the Equal Protection Clause, and/or the Establishment Clause. Next, I would categorize the type of situation the specific case falls under and the claimant’s religion. I reviewed claims regarding health or safety regulations of private activities, public elementary education, religious solicitation, prisoner claims, employment discrimination against a government employer, and exemptions from anti-discrimination rules.   

As my list of cases spanned across 2020, it was important to note whether each case came before or after the SCOTUS decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo on November 22, 2020. In short, the Supreme Court reviewed cases in which the government in New York limited attendance at religious services by a church and a synagogue due to COVID-19 concerns, while businesses in the area deemed essential were permitted to have unlimited numbers of people in their buildings. The Court determined that the strict restrictions imposed by the governor of New York were too severe and ordered them to be revoked as they were not generally applicable to citizens, the loss of First Amendment freedoms was likely to cause irreparable harm, and there was minimal public interest in the restrictions. This decision was vital to the lower courts in resolving the large number of cases brought by religious organizations challenging COVID-19 gathering restrictions. 

The next step in this process is for Dean Sisk to review the data and determine whether the null hypothesis has been rejected. If there is a significant conclusion, more writing about the research might follow. Previously, Dean Sisk and Professor Michael Heise have written Muslims and Religious Liberty in the Era of 9/11: Empirical Evidence from the Federal Courts, 98 Iowa L. Rev. 231 (2012), as well as Approaching Equilibrium In Free Exercise Of Religion Cases? Empirical Evidence From The Federal Courts, 64 Ariz. L. Rev. 989 (2022).  

The experience as a research assistant was an excellent opportunity to refine my analytical skills and learn more about the treatment of religious liberty by the courts.  I am eager to see the outcomes of our summer research and review future findings. 

 

Georgina Sugrue is a Murphy Scholar and 2L at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

“Student Perspective” is a recurring blog series which highlights the various activities of the Murphy Scholar graduate students during their fellowship.