What are the implications of Supreme Court’s refusal to hear 2nd cake case?

Written by William C. Duncan

June 19, 2019

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear a religious liberty case from Oregon. The court did, however, vacate the Oregon decision, which fined cake decorators $135,000 for declining to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court directed the Oregon Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in the case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case from Colorado, which was decided by the top court last year.

In other words, Oregon will have to determine whether the principle established in the Colorado decision (the state cannot single out citizens for disfavored treatment because of their sincere religious beliefs) applies.

The questions the Supreme Court and many other courts are wrestling with were addressed in Sutherland Institute’s most recent publication, Religious Liberty: Striving for Inclusion, and at an event where the publication was launched. Chapters written by experts Tim Schultz (president of the First Amendment Partnership), Robin Fretwell Wilson (professor at the University of Illinois law school), Hillary Byrnes (assistant general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), and Howard Slugh (co-founder of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty) directly address these legal questions.

Download your free copy online today.

Connect with Sutherland Institute

Join Our Donor Network

Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in /dom35049/wp-content/plugins/molongui-authorship-premium/public/views/parts/html-author-box-tabs.php on line 34
William C. Duncan

William (Bill) C. Duncan is Sutherland Institute’s Religious Freedom Policy Fellow. He formerly worked in the Law and Religion Program at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and has taught college courses on religion and law. Bill has submitted briefs on constitutional issues in the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 federal courts of appeals, eight state supreme courts, and other venues, including in important religious liberty cases.

He has presented expert testimony in the legislatures of seven states. His 75 scholarly articles have been published in the Rutgers Law Review, Howard Law Journal, Journal of Legislation, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Stanford Law and Policy Review and other journals. He has also published in National Review Online, SCOTUS Blog, and the American Spectator.