Happy to report that my review of Phillip Munoz’s excellent new book on the original meaning of the religion clauses, Religious Liberty and the American Founding, is up on the website of the Journal of Law & Religion (Cambridge). Munoz persuasively argues that the Framers disagreed on precisely what the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment protect, apart from the freedom to worship. And, I argue, that’s why original meaning can’t provide closure on many of our debates about religious liberty today.

Here’s an excerpt:

Religious Liberty and the American Founding is a pleasure to read. Muñoz writes well and exceptionally clearly, and his book will appeal both to the educated public and to constitutional lawyers and scholars who spend their time immersed in doctrinal debates. He offers a wealth of detail on the drafting and ratification of the religion clauses. And the story he tells is a persuasive one. History is argument without end, but Muñoz’s basic point that the framers disagreed on the precise meaning of establishment and free exercise in the First Amendment but understood those terms in light of their background conception of religious liberty seems entirely plausible. Precisely because the framers could not agree on what the natural right of religious liberty itself entailed with respect to specific government policies, though, it is not clear how helpful a natural-rights construction of original meaning can be in resolving specific constitutional disputes.