The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part: Hybrid Situations


In this issue, Murad Hussain discusses his recent Note, in which he proposes that the Free Exercise Clause doctrine of “hybrid situations” be used to encourage judicial recognition of group harms resulting from “governmental burdens upon religiously motivated exercises of secular constitutional rights.” Hussain argues that this strategy could be useful to American Muslims who bear the brunt of certain forms of counterterrorism profiling.

In response, Bernadette Meyler questions the immediate impact of the strategy, but notes that it could “eventually afford judges greater insight into the harms occasioned by the governmental action at issue and encourage them to weigh these in the balance against the national security interests that they invoke.” Frederick Mark Gedicks questions whether “hybrid rights” exist at all, and even if they did, why religious groups should be “more deserving of constitutional protection” than secular ones. R. Richard Banks, however, argues that Hussain does not go far enough, especially as his theory regards “the legitimate anxiety about the judicial role that may underlie courts’ disinclination to invalidate antiterrorism measures that impose group harms.” Hussain responds to each of these authors.

You may also like...