Overview

Stability is universally accepted as a central value in family law. Within the context of adult relationships, stability determines which relationships the law will recognize and support. Within the context of parent-child relationships, stability determines who will be recognized as a parent, whose parental rights will be terminated by the state, and who, among fit parents, will receive custody. This Article challenges stability’s pride of place in family law, identifying three problems with the law’s use of stability.

In Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court denied heightened constitutional protection to religiously motivated exercise burdened by neutral and generally applicable laws. The history presented in this Article suggests that the Smith approach conflicts with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Out of the crucible of religious abolitionist resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act emerged a substantive theory of constitutional religious freedom: American citizens should have the right to obey the Biblical command to care for the needy and provide the hungry a “crust of bread,” even if doing so was contrary to neutral and generally applicable state or federal law.

Does Congress have authority to pass legislation regulating the counting of electoral votes? This is a consequential question for the legal framework governing presidential elections. In 2022, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act (“ECRA”), which overhauled the statutory regime governing the counting of electoral votes. The ECRA’s predecessor statute, which had been in place since 1887, had long been criticized as ambiguous and unnecessarily convoluted. Those deficiencies were widely seen as a contributing cause of the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol, and a rare bipartisan majority in Congress passed the ECRA to address the earlier statute’s shortcomings.