Religious liberty functions as a “hard exception” to collectivist governance because it legally privileges individual conscience over the “general will” of the state. While collectivism relies on universal compliance to function (e.g., everyone must pay the tax, everyone must follow the mandate), the Free Exercise Clause allows individuals and institutions to opt out of these universal rules if they burden sincere religious beliefs. Under current Supreme Court precedents like Fulton and Hobby Lobby, this creates a fragmented legal landscape where the state’s “collective” power is constantly punctured by religious exemptions.
Zohran Mamdani Inaugural Address – January 1, 2026
The Conflict of Competing Sovereignties
Religious freedom and socialism have historically clashed because they represent rival claims to ultimate authority. Socialist governance typically centralizes power in the state to manage resources and enforce social equity, requiring a unified citizenry to succeed. Religion, however, posits an authority higher than the state, and demands that believers obey divine law over civil mandates when they conflict. This creates a structural friction; when a socialist state demands total allegiance to a collective plan (such as state-run education or property redistribution), religious groups often resist, viewing the state’s encroachment as a violation of their conscience. Consequently, socialist regimes have often viewed religion not just as a private belief, but as a political competitor that threatens state cohesion.
Religious liberty is one of the most robust “anti-collectivist” tools in American law.
In a collectivist framework, the “public good” (as defined by the state) supersedes individual preference. However, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause effectively grants religious citizens a “super-vote”—a constitutional right to refuse participation in collective projects that violate their conscience. This makes religion the one of the most robust legal barriers to the type of “expansive” governance Mayor Mamdani proposed in his inaugural address.
Why is this relevant to the new administration?
Mayor Mamdani’s pledge to “replace rugged individualism with collectivism” assumes the state can enforce uniformity. But the Supreme Court, currently dominated by a pro-religious liberty majority, has spent the last decade strengthening the ability of religious actors to resist such uniformity. As the city attempts to expand its role in healthcare, education, and housing, religious organizations will likely be the first to successfully block these mandates in court.
How does the “Exception” mechanism work legally?
The legal conflict between collectivism and religious liberty usually revolves around “laws of general applicability”—laws that apply to everyone equally.
-
The Collectivist Assumption: If a law applies to everyone (e.g., “all employers must cover contraception”), it is fair because it is the “collective will.”
-
The Religious Exception: The Supreme Court has ruled that if a law allows for any discretionary exceptions (like a hardship waiver), the government must also grant religious exceptions.
Key Precedent: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) In this case, Philadelphia tried to enforce a collective anti-discrimination policy on all foster care agencies. The Catholic Church refused to certify same-sex couples. The Court ruled for the Church, stating that because the city could grant exemptions in theory, it must grant them to religious groups.
-
Impact on New York: If Mamdani’s new rent or wage laws contain any loopholes for “hardship,” religious landlords or schools can demand the same exemption, effectively breaking the “collective” solidarity.
Where will Mamdani’s “Collectivism” collide with Religious Liberty?
Based on the Mayor’s platform, three specific flashpoints are likely to emerge where religious liberty will act as an exception to his rules.
1. The “Fair Economy” vs. Religious Employers
-
The Collective Rule: Mamdani wants to raise the minimum wage to $30/hr and mandate union neutrality for all city contractors.
-
The Exception: Religious schools and charities often operate on thin margins and claim that their internal governance is a religious matter. Under the “Ministerial Exception” (reinforced by Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru), religious institutions are largely exempt from employment laws regarding their key staff. They could refuse to recognize unions or pay state-mandated wages to “ministerial” employees, creating a two-tier labor system in the city.
2. Housing Justice vs. Property Rights
-
The Collective Rule: A universal rent freeze and stronger tenant protections.
-
The Exception: Religious landlords (churches owning apartments, religious non-profits) may claim that freezing their income prevents them from fulfilling their religious mission (e.g., funding a soup kitchen). While “commercial” activity is usually less protected, if the property is tied to the ministry, they will sue, arguing the state is forcing them to subsidize the public (a “taking” of their ministry resources).
3. Public Health & Education
-
The Collective Rule: Mandating vaccines or specific curricula in all schools to ensure “civic equity.”
-
The Exception: The Orthodox Jewish (Haredi) community in NYC is a massive political and legal force. They have successfully resisted state attempts to regulate yeshiva curricula for decades. If Mamdani tries to enforce “secular” standards in the name of collectivism, he will face a wall of First Amendment litigation that he will likely lose.
Is there a conflict within Mamdani’s own coalition?
This is the political paradox of his administration. Mamdani ran as a defender of Muslim civil rights (a religious liberty claim) but governs as a socialist (a collectivist economic claim).
-
The Tension: He supports the right of Muslims to “pray in mosques” (freedom of religion) but opposes the right of landlords to set market rents (freedom from regulation).
-
The Risk: By championing religious exemptions for his own community (e.g., halal food mandates in schools, which he supports), he validates the very legal tools that conservative Christian and Jewish groups will use to dismantling his economic regulations. You cannot empower the shield of “religious exception” for one group without handing it to all.
What is the “Sphere Sovereignty” defense?
Conservative religious groups often cite the theological concept of “Sphere Sovereignty” (Abraham Kuyper) to oppose collectivism.
-
The Theory: God created distinct spheres of authority: the State, the Church, and the Family.
-
The Defense: The State (Mamdani) has no jurisdiction to enter the sphere of the Church or Family. When the government tries to “parent” children (through curricula) or “minister” to the poor (by displacing church charities), it is acting as a usurper.
-
Legal Translation: In court, this translates to arguments that the government has no “compelling interest” in regulating internal church affairs, effectively walling off large sections of social life from the Mayor’s “collective” vision.
Commentary
The First Amendment is often described as a “shield,” but in the context of a socialist administration, it acts more like a wedge. Collectivism requires a smooth, uniform surface to function: everyone pays, everyone complies, everyone participates. Religious liberty drives a wedge into that surface, creating cracks where individuals and institutions can opt out.
Mayor Mamdani’s “warmth of collectivism” relies on the idea that we are all in this together. The Constitution, however, says: We are not. At least, not when “being in this together” violates a citizen’s duty to God. The Mayor will find that every time he tries to cast a wide net of regulation, he will catch a “religious freedom” dolphin that the courts will force him to release. This doesn’t just save the dolphin; it tears the net. If a Catholic hospital doesn’t have to follow the mandate, and a Jewish school doesn’t have to follow the curriculum, the “universality” of his socialist program collapses, leaving him with a patchwork system that looks less like a revolution and more like a network of exemptions.
Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV for more up-to-date information.
AI Disclaimer: This article was assisted by AI.
Legal Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to talk to licensed attorneys about their particular situations.