Professor Ruthann Robson’s opinion was included in a Guardian article about the reactions of supporters and detractors to the US Supreme Court Hobby Lobby ruling. Professor Robson also contributed a post to the London School of Economics blog on American Politics and Policy, arguing that the US Congress has a number of options for changing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In the Guardian piece, she is placed in the legal observer section and her opinion reads:
“The majority takes care to say it’s narrow and the dissent says it’s not narrow in its implication and I think that’s one of those things that time will tell. Is this the Roberts’ court chipping away at fundamental rights in the past or is it really a meaningful slide down a slippery slope of corporations being able to opt out of anything that they say conflicts with their religious beliefs?”
In her piece for the London School of Economics, Professor Robson considers possible outcomes in response to the Supreme Court decision. The court used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as the foundation for its ruling and Professor Robson proposes a number of ways for the US Congress to deal with the RFRA. She says the US Congress could amend the RFRA to define “person” as not including for profit corporations; change the level of scrutiny of the Act; or it could simply repeal it.
Professor Robson is the author of Dressing Constitutionally: Hierarchy, Sexuality, and Democracy From Our Hairstyles to Our Shoes (Cambridge University Press 2013), as well as the editor of the three volume set, International Library of Essays in Sexuality & Law (2011). She is a frequent commentator on constitutional and sexuality issues and the co-editor of the Constitutional Law Professors Blog.