What are the facts of this case?

Every law student lives in dread of being asked that question – by your professor, in front of your classmates.

A satisfactory answer doesn’t get you off the hook. You will then be asked what the court decided and most importantly, why it reached that outcome.

In preparation for the hearing tomorrow on my religious accommodation bill, I decided to read the leading Supreme Court decision on this issue, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. If someone asks me what the facts are in that case, I’ll know.

If I’m on my game, I won’t wait for someone to ask me that question. I’ll discuss it in my testimony instead.

Why? In Hardison, the Court held that an employee, whose Christian faith compelled him not to work on Saturday, his Sabbath, could be fired because his job “was essential, and on weekends he was the only available person on his shift to perform it.”

It will help make the point that passage of my legislation would not mean that the religious belief must be accommodated in every circumstance.

—-

Nobody asked me the following questions. I posed them to myself at today’s Judiciary Committee hearing.

Can we comply with the federal law requiring that someone demonstrate a lawful status in the United States before obtaining a driver’s license and also provide a driver’s license to people who don’t have the required documentation – to avoid marginalizing immigrants and increasing the risks on our roads by having these individuals drive without a license or insurance?

Can we afford the extra cost of such a two-tier system?