Lawrence Gene Sager

In Justice for Hedgehogs, Dworkin defends a one-system understanding of law. According to this view, law is morality…more exactly, law is a branch of political morality. I have a special interest in the claim, because Dworkin argues that one of its principal consequences is that it undermines arguments I have made about the valid legal status of precepts that are not properly enforceable by courts. In this chapter, I look critically at both Dworkin’s defense of the one system view and his claim that one can embrace the idea of judicially underenforced legal norms only by rejecting any moralized view of law and embracing positivism.

In 1990, in Department of Employment Services v. Smith,494 U.S. 872 (1990). the Supreme Court announced a new standard to govern Free Exercise claims. The Court held that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’”Id. at 879 (quoting United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n.3 (1982) (Stevens concurring)). Prior to Smith, the Court had applied a test drawn from Sherbert v. Verner.374 U.S. 398 (1963). In Sherbert, the Court had indicated that religiously motivated persons were constitutionally exempt from otherwise valid laws unless the imposition of those laws was necessary to secure “a compelling state interest.”Id. at 403 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the Court rejected almost every Free Exercise claim raised under Sherbert, the Sherbert standard was—in theory if not in practice—remarkably generous to religiously motivated persons, granting them a presumptive right to disobey laws that thwarted their religious commitments.