팬데믹 이후 종교적 집회의 자유 재구성 - 미국 연방대법원 판례를 중심으로 -

This article examines how the constitutional meaning and limits of religious freedom were constructed and adjusted during the COVID-19 pandemic by comparing key decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Korea. The pandemic created an unprecedented conflict between the state’s duty to protect public health and the constitutional protection of religious activities, prompting renewed scrutiny of the scope and structure of religious liberty under crisis conditions. In the United States, the Supreme Court fundamentally reshaped Free Exercise jurisprudence through Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Tandon v. Newsom. These decisions established that when religious activities are treated less favorably than comparable secular activities, strict scrutiny applies—even during a public health emergency. This marked a significant departure from the framework set by Employment Division v. Smith, effectively repositioning religious liberty as a robust shield against governmental regulation in times of crisis. Subsequent cases, including Kennedy v. Bremerton School District and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, demonstrate a post-pandemic “normalization,” in which heightened religious liberty protection is reintegrated into a broader framework of expressive and individual freedoms. By contrast, the Constitutional Court of Korea maintained its established proportionality-based approach throughout the pandemic. While acknowledging that restrictions on religious activities constitute limitations on fundamental rights, the Court upheld such measures by emphasizing the compelling public interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease and the availability of alternative means of religious practice. Rather than focusing on comparative equality between religious and secular activities, the Korean Court assessed restrictions through the lens of legitimacy, suitability, minimal impairment, and balancing of interests, reflecting a constitutional model in which fundamental rights are subject to adjustment in harmony with public welfare. This comparative analysis demonstrates that the pandemic functioned as a constitutional stress test, revealing divergent structural approaches to religious freedom under crisis. While the United States strengthened religious liberty as a defensive right against state power, Korea reinforced a model of proportional adjustment centered on public welfare. The study highlights how identical constitutional language can yield fundamentally different legal outcomes depending on underlying constitutional philosophy and institutional design.