These were compiled in late 2014, so they're missing (per Doug Laycock's note) Indiana and Arkansas:
State Constitutional Provision: ALA. CONST. amend. No. 622. State Statutes (in alphabetical order): ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 41-1493 to 41-1493.02; CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 52-571b; FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 761.01-761.05; IDAHO CODE §§ 73-401 to 73-404; 75 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 35/1 to 35/99; KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 60-5301 to -5305; KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 446.350; LA. REV. STAT. §§ 5231-5242; Miss. Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 2014 Miss. Laws WL No. 196 (S.B. 2681) (Apr. 3, 2014) (enacted but not yet codified); VERNONS ANN. MO. STAT. §§ 1.302 & 1.307; N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 28-22-1 to 28-22-5; OKLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 51-251 to 51-258; 71 PA. STAT. ANN. §§ 2401-2407; R.I. GEN. LAWS. §§ 42-80.1-1 to 42.80.1-4; S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 1-32-10 to 1-32-60; TENN. CODE ANN. § 4-1-407; TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 110.001 to 110.012; VA. CODE ANN. § 57-2.02. State Constitutional Provisions as Interpreted (in alphabetical order by state): Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commn, 874 P.2d 274, 280-84 (Alaska 1994) (interpreting ALASKA CONST. art. I, § 4), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 979 (1994); City Chapel Evangelical Free, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, Ind., 744 N.E.2d 443, 445-51 (Ind. 2001) (interpreting IND. CONST. art. I, §§ 2-4); Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208, 1227-28 (Me. 2005) (interpreting ME. CONST. art. I, § 3, eliminating doubt from prior cases); Atty Gen. v. Desilets, 636 N.E.2d 233, 235-36 (Mass. 1994) (interpreting MASS. CONST. amend. art. 46, § 1); McCready v. Hoffius, 586 N.W.2d 723, 729 (Mich. 1998) (interpreting MICH. CONST. art. I, § 4), vacated in part on other grounds, 593 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 1999); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397-99 (Minn. 1990) (interpreting MINN. CONST. art. I, § 16); St. Johns Lutheran Church v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 830 P.2d 1271, 1276-77 (Mont. 1992) (interpreting MONT. CONST. art. II, § 5); Humphrey v Lane, 728 N.E.2d 1039, 1043-45 (Ohio 2000) (interpreting OHIO CONST. art. I, § 7), cert. denied sub nom. Fink v. Ohio, 531 U.S. 912 (2000); Hunt v. Hunt, 648 A.2d 843, 852-53 (Vt. 1994) (interpreting VT. CONST. ch. I, art. 3); Munns v. Martin, 930 P.2d 318, 321 (Wash. 1997) (interpreting WASH. CONST. art. I, § 11); State v. Miller, 549 N.W.2d 235, 239-41 (Wis. 1996) (interpreting WIS. CONST. art. I, § 18); cf. In re Williams, 152 S.E.2d 317, 326 (N.C. 1967) (interpreting what is now N.C. CONST. art. I, § 13, but was then N.C. CONST. art. I, § 26, though doing so well prior to Smith). See also Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 859 N.E.2d 459, 466 (N.Y. 2006) (interpreting N.Y. CONST. art. I, § 3, as requiring an intermediate rather than strict level of scrutiny), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 816 (2007). Hope that helps. Scott Marquette University Law School -----Original Message----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Saturday, December 5, 2015 12:03 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>; Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: State RFRAs and their equivalents I collect these in my Illinois piece, in footnotes in the 20s. Indiana and Arkansas have been enacted since. On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:16:12 -0500 Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >Is there a reliable, up-to-date list of state RFRAs and state >constitutional provisions that have, more or less, been construed to >incorporate Sherbert/Yoder? I know that many are compiled in Chris's >2010 article. Anything more recent? > >Thanks in advance. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
