The Social Psychology of Religious Liberty Depolarization

Abstract

This Article examines how the U.S. Supreme Court has employed social psychological techniques to navigate contentious religious liberty cases involving LGBTQ+ rights. Drawing on cultural cognition theory and moral foundations theory, it analyzes the Court's use of "expressive virtues" like aporia and affirmation in recent high-profile cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, and 303 Creative v. Elenis. The Article argues that by acknowledging complexity and affirming diverse cultural worldviews in its opinions, the Court has helped reduce polarization around these issues. It traces how the Court's rhetorical strategies have influenced media coverage, shaped public discourse, and even affected behavior among relevant stakeholders. While recognizing the limitations of this approach given broader challenges to the Court's legitimacy, the Article contends that strategic use of these social psychological insights offers a promising path for fostering greater mutual understanding across deep cultural divides. By crafting opinions that resonate with diverse moral matrices, the Court can help cultivate a more inclusive constitutional culture capable of accommodating pluralism.