From Scotusblog: The Roberts court’s record on the First Amendment

For our look at the U.S. Bill of Rights, as well as the impact of the Roberts Court after the addition of Amy Coney Barrett.

- Click here for the article.

The Roberts court is often treated as especially protective of the First Amendment. It is true that the court has reshaped free speech law across such areas as campaign finance, student speech, government speech, and online platforms. It has also transformed religious doctrine through expanding the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, and in several religious-accommodation cases.

But these two First Amendment stories are not the same. The court’s speech cases are often favorable towards speakers, but speech claimants do not win uniformly. Religion is more consistent. Across the Roberts court, religious claimants have done unusually well. That pattern predates Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but it has become sharper since she joined the court. And when cases sit at the boundary between speech and religion, the claimant often fares especially well.

The takeaway is that the Roberts court, particularly post-Barrett, is not simply pro–First Amendment. It is more precise to say that the court is often pro-speech, strongly pro-religion, and most consistent when speech overlaps with religious identity or conscience. That distinction is fundamental for understanding the court’s current direction, including its decision to hear the case of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which challenges long-standing religious precedent.

- What is the Roberts Court?