CASES: Free Exercise of Religion Flashcards
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
Work on Sabbath and Free Exercise
Brennan – Under the Free Exercise Clause, the government may not regulate a person’s religious beliefs. However, if a person takes overt actions as a result of her religious beliefs, the government may regulate those actions if they pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace, or order.
Sherbert’s refusal to work on Saturdays is not conduct that poses a substantial threat to public safety, and her ineligibility for unemployment benefits constitutes a burden on her free exercise of her religion.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Public Education for Amish and Free Exercise
Burger – The state has substantial authority to mandate and regulate education, but its power is not unlimited. A parent’s interest in a child’s religious upbringing and the rights secured by the Free Exercise Clause are fundamental.
Bob Jones University v. United States (1983)
Racist Private School and Free Exercise
Burger (8-1) – The government may justify a limitation on religious liberties by showing it is necessary to accomplish an “overriding governmental interest,” such as prohibiting racial discrimination.
Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)
Peyote and Free Exercise
Scalia (6-3) – An individual’s religious beliefs do not excuse them from complying with an otherwise valid law of general applicability. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.
O’Connor (concurring) – The only way to ensure that the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion is not overly burdened is to require the government to provide a compelling state interest whenever it seeks to regulate religious conduct.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
RFRA and Free Exercise
Kennedy (6-3) – The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which imposes strict scrutiny when government action infringes on free exercise of religion, is unconstitutional as it applies to the states (although it still applies with respect to federal actions).
Congress has the power to enforce laws to prevent the violation of a constitutional right, but it does not have the power to define the substance of that constitutional right. That is the Court’s job.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)
Religious Corp Denies Coverage and Free Exercise
Alito (5-4) – A federal regulation that requires a closely held corporation to provide health-insurance coverage for contraception violates RFRA if the regulation impinges on the sincerely held religious beliefs of the corporation’s owners.
Ginsburg (dissenting) – The Free Exercise Clause and the Act apply to the religious beliefs of natural persons, and for-profit corporations cannot hold religious beliefs. Also, Hobby Lobby has not shown that the HHS regulations substantially burden its exercise of religion. Under the regulations, it is the companies’ employees that choose health-insurance coverage, and it is the health-insurance companies that provide the contraception.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)
Tuition Aid for Religious Schools and Free Exercise
Roberts (5-4) – Once a state decides to subsidize private education, the state may not disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.
Sotomayor dissenting) – The decision of a state not to fund religious activity is a valid choice to remain secular and does not infringe on a fundamental right.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020)
Teachers in Religious School and Free Exercise
Alito (7-2) – Under the ministerial exception, the government is not allowed to interfere in the employment decisions of churches and religious institutions, as that would infringe on free exercise of religion.
Teachers at religious schools who provide religious instruction to students are generally considered to be involved in promoting the school’s religious mission, so courts cannot interfere with the school’s refusal to renew a teacher’s employment contract.
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo (2020)
Pandemic Restrictions and Free Exercise
Per Curiam (5-4) – In the case of a First Amendment challenge to a statute or executive order, the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case if he can establish that the restriction targets religion, rather than having general applicability, and is unlikely to pass strict-scrutiny review. To pass strict-scrutiny review, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to support a compelling state interest.
The executive order targets religious institutions by excluding other businesses from the restrictions and, therefore, is subject to strict scrutiny. The executive order fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. After all, there have been no outbreaks at these institutions, and therefore, there is no reason to specifically target them.
Sotomayor (dissenting) – There is no comparison between the religious institutions restricted by the order and the secular businesses exempted. The businesses exempted do not involve individuals congregating together in one area for an extended period of time.
