Locke v. Davey and expanded free exercise rights

[A.E. Brownstein]

I was particularly pleased with footnote 8 in the majority opinion that 
pointed out that Washington provides greater free exercise protection than 
the federal constitution. Conceptually, this resonates with the argument 
that there an important connection or equilibrium in interpreting the 
religion clauses such that the rigorous enforcement of one reinforces and 
justifies the rigorous enforcement of the other. Pragmatically, it supports 
the rhetorical argument that a state that uses the play in the joints it is 
allowed to impose more restrictions on the funding of religious 
institutions and activities than the federal constitution requires ought to 
provide comparably greater protection to religious institutions and 
activities on the free exercise side of the constitutional equation as well.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis