I basically agree with my co-bloggers’ posts from yesterday about Hobby Lobby (see, e.g., Eugene’s posts here and here): given RFRA, I think Hobby Lobby should have prevailed, as it did. In particular, I favor the idea that corporations should be able to assert rights under RFRA (see Ilya’s post here). But I should mention that I’m not wild about RFRA in the first place. It’s true that RFRA passed unanimously in the House and nearly unanimously in the Senate — in 1993, when Congress was controlled by Democrats — and was signed by Bill Clinton, and everyone now on the Court seems to accept the constitutionality of RFRA (see, e.g., the O Centro case from 2006, or Cutter v. Wilkinson). Justice Stevens is the only one who ever showed any sympathy for the argument that RFRA violates the Establishment Clause, in his concurrence in City of Boerne v. Flores. Nonetheless, Justice Stevens may have been right as a philosophical matter, so let me reproduce the entirety of his concurrence here: