In Doe v. Marion County, Arkansas, (WD AR, May 5, 2025), an Arkansas federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit brought under the Arkansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. At issue in the case is the manner in which an Arkansas county coroner disposed of the body of plaintiff’s father after the coroner was unable to locate any next of kin. The body was cremated. When plaintiff discovered this, she sued alleging in part that cremation violated her strongly held religious beliefs. In recommending judgment for defendants on this claim, the magistrate judge said in part:
Simply using the term “sincerely held religious beliefs” … without stating any accompanying factual detail, is insufficient to state a plausible claim. See Stephens v. Legacy-GoHealth Urgent Care, … (“[g]eneral references to Christianity…. fail to plausibly suggest that a plaintiff’s anti-vaccination beliefs are in fact religious”)… While it is not for the court to determine the reasonableness of Doe’s alleged religious beliefs, we are not required to take her conclusory assertions of violation at face value….
Even if Doe had pled facts sufficient to state an ARFRA claim, Defendants have sustained their burden of showing that their actions, in accordance with state law, were in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest…. Burial is markedly more expensive, and there is no lesser restrictive means to further the government’s interest…. Requiring the state to bury all unclaimed bodies simply because an unknown family member might have a religious belief against cremation would certainly constitute an undue hardship….
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]