AMEND 1: FREE EXERCISE [DONE] Flashcards
Masterpiece Cakeshop [FREE EXERCISE]
Cake shop refuses to make a cake for same-sex couple wedding celebration because of religious opposition to same-sex marriages.
Court finds a lukumi violation and avoids idea of requiring the baker to make a cake as violation of free speech rights.
Rule: Adjudicatory proceedings against a person for unlawful discrimination must give neutral and respectful consideration to the person’s defense of sincere religious motivation.
Dissent in Masterpiece
How do you figure out whether these people are telling the truth? Won’t have a smoking gun.
Reynolds
Rule: while the FE clause protects religious beliefs, it does not shield conduct from regulation
Facts: Mormon case where the Mormon religion is still committed to polygamy. Bigamy is a crime in federal law. General law for non-religious reasons complies. The religious people have to comply. Government was not targeting discrimination in that law.
Note:
Some cases combine free exercise concern with free speech concern.
Note:
Some cases combine free exercise concern with free speech concern.
Which aspects of Amend 1 : Free exercise of Religion cross over into Free Speech concerns?
The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment work together to protect religious exercises and expressive religious activities. This dual protection is a result of the framers’ distrust of government attempts to regulate religion and suppress dissent.
The Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions
This is why speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum on the ground that the subject is discussed from a religious viewpoint
How do Free Speech & Free Exercise differ?
protection extends to indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion and includes the distribution of religious tracts and speech discussing permissible SPEECH subjects from a religious VIEWPOINT.
Tandon
The restrictions were a general rule and were not meant to apply for religious reasons. These may have also been the least restrictive means. The private at-home gatherings had the least scrutiny.
The court held that the restrictions were neutral and generally applicable, thus not violating the appellants’ free religious exercise rights
Fulton
Here there are candidates for foster care agencies: This is not general or broad enough and requires a sherbert standard of strict scrutiny. It’s not a compelling interest to have this principle when it comes to same-sex foster care.
Does the state have a compelling interest?
Reasonable people can disagree on this.
The government’s creation of a formal mechanism allowing it to grant exceptions to a policy based on discretion renders the policy unneutral.
— Kait summary: city’s anti-discrimination policy was not generally applicable because the city had the discretion to grant exceptions to its policy but chose to deny an exemption to Catholic Social Services —-
What do you have to keep in mind with the religious cases?
Interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause could potentially have implications for Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores [Corp. as Individual]
Rule: Court applied RFRA to find that a closely-held corporation could be a person entitled to religious belief.
So - they have right to exercise religious beliefs and get an exemption from certain federal regulations if those regulations substantially burden their exercise of religion.
Facts: Addresses the issue of religious freedom in the context of for-profit corporations.
centered on whether the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate imposed an impermissible burden on the employers’ religious beliefs against contraceptives
Kennedy (CASE THAT OVERTURNED LEMON)
How FE: Free exercise of the coach getting to pray on the field.
(1) Government policies that burden sincere religious practices and are not neutral and generally applicable must satisfy strict scrutiny. (2) The Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Free Speech Clause complement each other.
J. Kennedy on Kennedy
emphasized that the Court’s opinion did not resolve two issues related to Kennedy’s free-exercise claim, indicating a nuanced approach to these matters
J. Kennedy & Religion
his decisions reflect a nuanced approach that seeks to balance the competing demands of these two constitutional provisions
303 as Free Exercise
is a significant development in the jurisprudence of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as it demonstrates the Court’s willingness to prioritize free speech rights over anti-discrimination protections in certain contexts
American Legion
The American Legion’s practices, including the inclusion and recitation of “so help me God” in the naturalization oath, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
court noted that a plaintiff alleging a Free Exercise violation must show that a government action has a coercive effect on her religious practice.
In this case, the plaintiff could not demonstrate such a coercive effect. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Free Exercise claim
Tandon v. Newson (2021)
Rule: State could not “assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work”
Case revolved around the issue of whether the State of California’s COVID-19 restrictions on private religious gatherings violated the free exercise rights of the appellants.
Factors : California treated some comparable secular activities more favorably than at-home religious exercise, which was a violation of the appellants’ free exercise rights
