Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2026
Abstract
While the Court has expanded the scope of Free Exercise protections, it has conspicuously failed to articulate how courts should separate sincere religious claims from fraudulent ones. The result is a doctrinal void: any claimant can recast political or philosophical objections as "religious" and demand constitutional protection. The risk is that the Free Exercise Clause, if stripped of any sincerity filter, will collapse into a generalized right to exemption from law. This Article argues that courts can assess religious sincerity without evaluating the truth or validity of the religious belief, and it proposes a framework grounded in the constitutional text, historical practice, and modern precedent. This Article advances a two-step framework: first, requiring institutional validation or an affirmative "Religious Island" pleading; and second, evaluating sincerity through evidence of lived practice, incentives, and contextual consistency. The Religion Clauses stand as dual guardians of religious liberty, shielding authentic faith from government compulsion while preventing opportunistic misuse. Robust sincerity review is the mechanism by which those dual purposes can be preserved. Without it, the First Amendment risks becoming less of a shield for conscience than a sword for opportunism.
