Which case held that free exercise of religion is not absolute and can be restricted by neutral, generally applicable laws?

Which case held that free exercise of religion is not absolute and can be restricted by neutral, generally applicable laws?

• A. Employment Division v. Smith
• B. Reynolds v. United States
• C. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
• D. Wisconsin v. Yoder

Answer: (A)

Free exercise of religion is not absolute; a law that is neutral and generally applicable can restrict religious practice. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from a law that is neutral and generally applicable, even if it burdens religious observance. The case involved two Native American workers who used peyote in religious ceremonies and were denied unemployment benefits after violating a state prohibition on peyote; the Court said the unemployment statute was neutral and generally applicable and therefore did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This ruling shifted away from requiring exemptions in all burdensome cases and established that only laws that are not neutral or not generally applicable (or laws that target religion) trigger stricter scrutiny. By contrast, Reynolds v. United States upheld that religious duty cannot excuse criminal conduct, Wisconsin v. Yoder protects religious exemptions in certain fundamental contexts requiring strict scrutiny, and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah struck down laws that were purposefully aimed at a religious practice.

Free exercise of religion is not absolute; a law that is neutral and generally applicable can restrict religious practice. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from a law that is neutral and generally applicable, even if it burdens religious observance. The case involved two Native American workers who used peyote in religious ceremonies and were denied unemployment benefits after violating a state prohibition on peyote; the Court said the unemployment statute was neutral and generally applicable and therefore did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This ruling shifted away from requiring exemptions in all burdensome cases and established that only laws that are not neutral or not generally applicable (or laws that target religion) trigger stricter scrutiny. By contrast, Reynolds v. United States upheld that religious duty cannot excuse criminal conduct, Wisconsin v. Yoder protects religious exemptions in certain fundamental contexts requiring strict scrutiny, and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah struck down laws that were purposefully aimed at a religious practice.