Free exercise of religion trumps all for Neil Gorsuch

If the US Supreme Court is petitioned to grant a stay of execution, it
requires at least 5 of 9 justices to agree to the order. (Yeah yeah. I
know this is equity. It's a writ, not an order.)

Hoffman v. Westcott

In this case, there's no stay.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson wrote nothing. Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief
dissent.

The prisoner awaiting execution is a Bhuddist. There is a tradition of
meditative breathing at time of death that the method of execution to be
used -- asphyxiation by nitrogen gas -- would prevent.

There is a federal law, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act of 2000 (which narrowed religious protections of Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 which was unconstitutional) applicable to state
prisons if they accept federal monies. The free exercise of religion
rights of prisoners must not be substantially burdened, and that "very
strict scrutiny" (it's the Wikipedia summary and not a level of judicial
review I've ever heard of) would be applied to constitutional review of
the statute in question.

Opinions on religion make me tear my hair out. The First Amendment has
not one but two religion clauses: the Establishment clause and Free
Exercise of Religion clause. Sometimes when the government does or does
not do something affecting religion, an analysis under each clause must
be performed. Is the government giving an unfair benefit or advantage to
one religion and not others in accomodating religious exercise? Which
clause does it violate, either, neither, or both?

The other thing that makes me tear my hair out is that the plaintiff is
allowed to claim being affected by a substantial burden on free exercise
of religion without the court considering whether his beliefs are
sincerely held. Great. There's no finding on that. So how is the strict
scrutiny review applied without considering sincerity?

The Internal Revenue Act of 1954 (and successors) is a substantial
burden on the free exercise of my religion in which I am not subject to
tax on my income. I've asserted it. The judge cannot consider whether my
belief is sincerely held or if it's part of any religion he's ever heard
of. I just win, right?

Certain Scalia opinions were considered to be sloppily written for
failure to make a bright line distinction in his reasoning about which
clause applied, and often, he was accused of applying the wrong one.

Here we have Neil Gorsuch, who rarely agrees to stays of execution,
raising his concern in dissent, that the trial court failed to
adequately consider the prisoner's free exercise of religion. The trial
court made a finding that the execution wouldn't interfere with the
breathing required by faith. Gorsuch's objection was that the trial
court wasn't supposed to make a judgment on the sincerity of belief.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/justices-allow-louisiana-to-execute-buddhist-over-religious-freedom-claim/