1ST AMENDMENT- FREE EXERCISE Flashcards
Reynolds v. US- facts and rule
man attempts to marry a second woman and claims that polygamy is part of his religion.
rule- free exercuse clause doesnot compel the granting of the exception for religious practices that are prohibited by criminal laws, ur religigion does not put you above the law.
Reynolds- rationale
- con gressis deprived over opinion. and belief, but is free to reach actions in violation of socoetal duties or goes against notions of good order.
- polygamy is an offense against society.
Sherber v. Verner
facts- appellant was fired bc she would not work on saturdays bc of sabbath, she applied for unemployment but could not get it bc she had not accpeted other jobs and could not show good cause for why se did not accept.
rule- disqualification of benefits imposes burdens on free exercise.
sherbert- rationale WRITTEN BY BRENNAN
- if the purpose or effect of the law is to impede observance of one or all religions or discriminate between religions, then the law is unconstitutionally invalid wven though the burden is indirect.
- there is pressure to forgo the practice of religion here. liberties may be infirnged by the denial of or placing certain conditions on benefits and privileges. dont make people choose.
- protects the sunday sabbath.
- then strict scrutiny applies (worded differently) when there is a substantial infringement: “only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, (must be narrowly tailored).
- The phrase “only the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests” emphasizes the high standard the government must meet to justify any law or action infringing on religious exercise. This standard requires the government to demonstrate that there are no less intrusive alternatives available to achieve its goals.
Neutral laws of general applicability
stems from smith!
Smith 1990 - facts and rule SCALIA
oregon outlaws the use of peyote and other controlled substances. workers are fired over the use for the religion.
Rule: people are not above the law, here we are dealing with acriminal law!
Smith rationale
- the conduct in sherbert was not a crime so it is not comparable here.
- would probably be a violation of free exercise if the law only targeter religious conduct
- if prohiiting the exercise of religion is not the objective but merely an incidental effect of a neutral and generally applicable law (criminal or other) the 1st amendment is NOT OFFENDED.
Smith- hybrid test???
scalia talks about a hybrid test where it opens the door for people to bring to claims, so if you have free exercise and another const right, then that would give u a shot for strict scrutiny.
- but also remember that stroict scurtiny will be used when we are in sherbert employment land.
Hobby Lobby- main rule
so the fed RFRA is passed which means that strict scuritny will be used for a law that substantially burdens free exercise.
applied to corporations as well.
how does rfra work in terms of smith
Tying It All Together:
* Smith made it easier for governments to enforce neutral laws, even if they burden religion.
* Congress passed the RFRA to make it harder for the government to burden religious exercise by requiring strict scrutiny again.
* In cases like Hobby Lobby, the RFRA lets individuals or entities challenge federal laws (like the contraceptive mandate) if they impose a substantial burden on religious practice.
* Smith still applies to cases where RFRA doesn’t, like when state or local laws are involved without a state RFRA.
* So, RFRA didn’t “overrule” Smith but instead created a separate, stronger protection for religious freedom where it applies.
Fulton v city of phili - facts
City stops referring children to Catholic Social Services because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. The city will renew only of agency agrees to certify same-sex.
fulton 2021- unanimous
- we dont overrule smith because the law here because the law was not neutral or generally applicable bc there were exceptions to the nondiscrimination reuqirement that was not granted to the catholic church.
- the govt fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices bc of their religious nature.
- a law is not generally applicable if it treats religious conduct and secular conduct differently and allows exceptions for non religious reasons sbut not for religious reasons.
WHOS OVERTURNING SMITH
for sure - thomas and alito
gorsuch wants to reexamine smith and apply strict scrutiny always.
acb, kavanaugh, and breyer- they believe that there are textual and structural arguments for overturning smith.
so basically they would all overrule. even cjr says that he would oveturn it but fulton wasnt the place to do so.
masterpiece cake
won’t bake cakes for same-sex couples and Colorado said you can’t do that bc it violated the anti-discrimination laws. Court sided with the baker bc the other side had argued some negative things about religion which violated free exercise to talk so negatively about religion.
Majority- CJR, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Breyer. Sotomayor dissent.
Groff v dejoy. facts and rule
facts- Groff was a christian usps worker who refused to woek on sundays due to his religion, usps offered to find employees to swap with him but there were some occassions where they could not find other coworkers to swap so then groff would not work, he is then fired from usps and then groff sues under title vii.
rule- title vii of the CRA requires an employer to reasonably accommodate a religious practice unless doing so will result in increased costs that are substantial in overall context of business.
