con law 2/3

Overview of Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Free Exercise

Introduction to Key Tests and Evolution of Standards

  • The discussion begins with the complexities of Supreme Court standards regarding religious free exercise.

  • Reynolds Case introduces the belief-action distinction:

    • Separates belief in religion (protected) and actions resulting from those beliefs (not always protected).

  • Cantwell v. Connecticut establishes a policy test, where neutrality and general applicability of laws toward all religions are emphasized.

  • Sherbert v. Verner replaces previous tests with the compelling state interest test, allowing exemptions for religious practices.

  • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) revises the framework again, introducing the Smith Test:

    • States that laws can apply uniformly even if they burden religious practices, provided they are generally applicable.

Employment Division v. Smith

  • This case prompts a detailed examination of the Smith Test:

    • The fundamental principle asserts that laws must apply evenly, even if this places a burden on religious communities.

    • The Supreme Court's ruling leads to more stringent interpretations of religious free exercise.

Case Study: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

  • Background

    • Hialeah, a suburb of Miami, faces the arrival of the Santeria community, a Cuban religion involving animal sacrifice.

    • City ordinances are enacted to prevent nonfood animal sacrifices, targeting the Santeria practices.

  • Supreme Court Analysis

    • Justice Kennedy's opinion investigates two critical components:

    • Neutrality: The law is not neutral as it directly targets the practices of Santerians.

    • Generality: The law fails the test of general applicability, as it exempts certain activities (e.g., fishing, pest control) while targeting religious practices.

    • Leads to the conclusion that the law is unconstitutional:

    • It does not meet the standards of strict scrutiny required for laws affecting religious practices.

Post-Smith Landscape of Religious Free Exercise

  • After Employment Division v. Smith, there is a perceived setback for many religious groups who previously received exemptions under the Sherbert Test.

  • Increased coalition-building among disparate religious groups emerges, leading to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993:

    • Designed to re-establish protections by requiring that any government burden on religious exercise must be:

    • Justified by a compelling governmental interest.

    • Narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

Challenges to RFRA: City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

  • Context: The decision surrounding RFRA faces scrutiny regarding its application to states.

  • Case Summary

    • A Catholic Church challenges the denial to renovate a historically significant site.

  • Court's Ruling

    • The Supreme Court rules the RFRA unconstitutional in its application to states, reaffirming that generally applicable laws cannot be exempted unless candidates can prove compelling state interest.

State-Level Responses: Mini-RFRAs

  • In response to the ruling, several states enact their own versions of RFRA, each interpreting the need for religious exemptions differently.

Summary of Frameworks in Religious Free Exercise Law

  • Key Tests

    • Reynolds' Belief-Action Distinction: Protection of religious beliefs vs. actions.

    • Sherbert's Compelling State Interest Test: Requires a compelling interest if religious practices are burdened.

    • Smith's Neutral Laws of General Applicability: Laws must apply uniformly without targeting specific religions.

  • At the Federal Level:

    • Laws that incidentally burden religious exercise may not violate the First Amendment unless they target a specific religious group.

    • The federal government under RFRA must provide exemptions to protect religious exercise.

  • At the State Level:

    • Varies widely based on individual state mini-RFRAs or lack thereof, allowing for different applications of religious freedom protections.

Recent Key Cases

  • Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014): Examines if for-profit corporations can exercise religious beliefs:

    • Hobby Lobby refuses to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act due to religious objections.

    • The court rules that the RFRA applies to for-profit corporations, allowing exemptions based on religious grounds.

  • Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): Focuses on religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination laws:

    • Jack Phillips, a baker, refuses to create a cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs.

    • The Supreme Court sides with Phillips, highlighting negative treatment from the Colorado commission against his beliefs, but doesn't broadly decide that religious beliefs always trump anti-discrimination laws.

  • Implications: The narrow rulings highlight an ongoing balance between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination laws, with each case reinforcing the need for sensitivity and respect for varied beliefs in an increasingly diverse societal context.

Conclusion

  • The intricate legal landscape concerning religious free exercise reflects ongoing debates about the boundaries between individual rights and community standards, continually evolving through landmark Supreme Court decisions.