Free Exercise Is Once Again Up For Debate In The SCOTUS
Creators: name: Zelicof, Rachel
Publisher: name: American University
Year: 2023
Subjects: classificationCode: 48
subject: Law and legal studies

description: Groff’s Free Exercise Challenge: Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian, works for the United States Postal Service. He refused to work on Sundays since he claims that it is a day of religious observance. The lower court in Pennsylvania rejected Groff’s claim that the United States Postal Service discriminated against his free exercise of religion. The case has been appealed and is now being taken to the Supreme Court. Arguments will be delivered on Tuesday April 18, 2023. [1]
Interestingly, this has been a long-standing case battle with the courts. In May of 2022, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that granting a religious exemption to Groff would excessively strain his coworkers by coercing them to pick up more shifts. Groff has petitioned for an appeal to the SCOTUS to review his case for a second time. [2]
Legal Precedents: It may be helpful for the court to review past rulings in cases such as Sherbert v. Verner. In this case, we see a similar situation based on the free exercise of religion. Adeil Sherbert, was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. [3] Sherbert was fired from her job since “she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith” [3]. Sherbert filed for unemployment benefits, but the Employment Security Commission ruled that her basis for her refusal to work “constituted failure without good cause” and Sherbert was denied the unemployment benefits[3]. The question at hand in this case was; did the denial of unemployment benefits to Sherbert constitute a violation of the First Amendment?
The justices concluded in Sherbert v. Verner that Sherbert’s free exercise of her religion was being burdened by the state’s unemployment benefits eligibility requirements. Hence, the justices voted in a 7-2 decision that there was no evidence of enough of a compelling state interest to justify such a burden. [3]
Implications: Sherbert v. Verner prompts a unique discussion surrounding religious-based exemptions. Will all religious-based discrimination claims be recognized? What standard will the court use in future cases if religious-based exemptions become widely popular? It is not easy making a decision in Groff’s case because this could open the door for all other religious-based exemptions to be honored by the courts. It is necessary that the justices evaluate the extent of the impact of Groff taking Sundays off for religious-exemptions.
There are a myriad of questions that the courts should be asking when considering whether or not to grant Groff an exemption from working on Sundays. How great of a strain would this put on coworkers? Additionally, if one worker takes Sundays off will this drastically affect the functionality of the United States Postal Service? Finally, would Groff taking off work on Sundays make him more productive during his other workdays?
If we apply the ruling from a very similar situation in Sherbert v. Verner to Groff’s case, he should be able to take Sundays off for religious observance. There is clearly no concrete or substantial burden demonstrated by the United States Postal Service if Groff were not to work on Sundays. Most importantly, the ultimate way to make a just decision in this case is to evaluate both sides of the argument.