RFRA requires that a person may be exempted from a generally applicable law if the law substantially burdens the person's exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that (ii) the law's burden "is in furtherance of a compelling government interest" and (ii) the law's burden "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). The majority opinion, authored by Justice Alito, says that Congress intended in RFRA to broaden the protection of religious exercise beyond what pre-Smith cases had concluded. Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion says that RFRA was intended only to restore the pre-Smith jurisprudence. Explain how they reached their different conclusions.
Compare and contrast how Justice Alito concludes that closely held for-profit corporations are "persons" within the meaning of RFRA, and Justice Ginsburg concludes the opposite. Who do you think has the better argument, and why?
On the question of whether there is a substantial burden, explain how Justice Alito concludes that ACA's "mandate clearly imposes a substantial burden on [Hobby Lobby's] beliefs." Also explain how Justice Ginsburg reached her conclusion that it did not. Who do you think has the better argument, and why?