🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • First Amendment - Religion
CONLAW#156
Legal Definition
The 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from punishing someone on the basis of their religious beliefs. A court can inquire into the genuineness of one's belief in the religion, but will not declare a religious belief to be false. Where a law is a neutral law of general applicability, it is subject only to the rational basis test—the free exercise clause may not be used to challenge such a law. Where the law is not neutral or generally applicable, it is subject to strict scrutiny.
Plain English Explanation
Freedom of religion is a core American value enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. The government is prohibited from punishing or discriminating against someone based on their sincerely held religious beliefs. This protection exists because our nation was founded on the principle that people should be free to practice their faith without interference or persecution from the state.
However, this right is not absolute. If a law is neutral and generally applicable to everyone, regardless of religion, then it only needs to serve a legitimate government interest to be constitutional, even if it happens to place a burden on certain religious practices. For example, a general law banning the use of illegal drugs can still be applied to a religion that uses those drugs in its ceremonies.
On the other hand, if a law specifically targets a particular religion or religious practice, or if it allows for exemptions based on secular criteria but not religious ones, then the government must demonstrate that the law serves an extremely important interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least impact on religious freedoms possible. The government can't just say "because we said so" - it has to have a really compelling justification.
However, this right is not absolute. If a law is neutral and generally applicable to everyone, regardless of religion, then it only needs to serve a legitimate government interest to be constitutional, even if it happens to place a burden on certain religious practices. For example, a general law banning the use of illegal drugs can still be applied to a religion that uses those drugs in its ceremonies.
On the other hand, if a law specifically targets a particular religion or religious practice, or if it allows for exemptions based on secular criteria but not religious ones, then the government must demonstrate that the law serves an extremely important interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest with the least impact on religious freedoms possible. The government can't just say "because we said so" - it has to have a really compelling justification.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is a devout member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. One of the tenets of his faith is that he must wear a colander on his head at all times. When Bob goes to the DMV in Hypofornia to get his driver's license renewed, they tell him he can't wear the colander for his photo. Bob sues, arguing this violates his free exercise rights. Result: The DMV's no-hats/headgear policy for license photos almost certainly qualifies as a neutral rule of general applicability. It doesn't target any particular religion, but is applied across the board for the purpose of having clear identification photos. As such, it only needs to meet rational basis scrutiny, which is a very low bar. Bob's free exercise claim would likely fail, as the government has a legitimate interest in effective ID photos that outweighs the minor imposition on his religious practice.
Hypo 2: The town of Hypoville has a large Pastafarian population who believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will unleash his noodly wrath if they don't regularly consume large quantities of pasta. In response, the town passes an ordinance banning the sale of pasta and pasta strainers within city limits. Bob, a Pastafarian restaurant owner, sues. Result: This law is clearly targeting a specific religious practice - it's not a general ban on Italian cuisine. As such, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. The town would need to prove that it has a compelling interest that justifies the burden on Pastafarians' free exercise of religion, and that there's no less restrictive way to achieve that interest. Banning a food simply because it's religiously significant is unlikely to meet that high bar, so the ordinance is probably unconstitutional.
Hypo 3: Sam is a member of a fringe religious group that believes paying taxes is a sin. When the IRS fines him for not paying his taxes, he argues that it violates his free exercise rights. Result: The requirement to pay income taxes is a quintessential example of a neutral rule of general applicability. It applies to everyone and wasn't created with the purpose of burdening any particular religious group. The government's interest in collecting revenue to function is extremely important. Sam's religious objections don't exempt him from this universally applicable law.
Hypo 4: Bob's religion requires him to sacrifice animals each week. Sam, his neighbor, sues under the local animal cruelty laws. Result: Animal cruelty laws are neutral and generally applicable - they weren't passed to target Bob's religion specifically. However, many such laws have exemptions for practices like hunting, pest control, and kosher slaughter. If the law has secular exemptions but doesn't allow for religiously motivated animal killing, it may no longer be considered "generally applicable" and would be subject to strict scrutiny. The question would be whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing this type of animal slaughter, and whether the law is the least restrictive means of achieving it. It's a complex issue that would depend on the specifics of the local law.
Hypo 5: Bob believes that his religion requires him to use heroin. He is arrested under Hypofornia's controlled substance laws for possessing heroin. Result: Drug laws are a clear example where a neutral, generally applicable law can be constitutionally applied despite burdening certain religious practices. Avoiding the health and societal dangers of addictive drugs is unquestionably a compelling government interest, and the law is not targeting any specific religion. Bob's free exercise rights do not give him a "get out of jail free" card here.
Hypo 2: The town of Hypoville has a large Pastafarian population who believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will unleash his noodly wrath if they don't regularly consume large quantities of pasta. In response, the town passes an ordinance banning the sale of pasta and pasta strainers within city limits. Bob, a Pastafarian restaurant owner, sues. Result: This law is clearly targeting a specific religious practice - it's not a general ban on Italian cuisine. As such, it would be subject to strict scrutiny. The town would need to prove that it has a compelling interest that justifies the burden on Pastafarians' free exercise of religion, and that there's no less restrictive way to achieve that interest. Banning a food simply because it's religiously significant is unlikely to meet that high bar, so the ordinance is probably unconstitutional.
Hypo 3: Sam is a member of a fringe religious group that believes paying taxes is a sin. When the IRS fines him for not paying his taxes, he argues that it violates his free exercise rights. Result: The requirement to pay income taxes is a quintessential example of a neutral rule of general applicability. It applies to everyone and wasn't created with the purpose of burdening any particular religious group. The government's interest in collecting revenue to function is extremely important. Sam's religious objections don't exempt him from this universally applicable law.
Hypo 4: Bob's religion requires him to sacrifice animals each week. Sam, his neighbor, sues under the local animal cruelty laws. Result: Animal cruelty laws are neutral and generally applicable - they weren't passed to target Bob's religion specifically. However, many such laws have exemptions for practices like hunting, pest control, and kosher slaughter. If the law has secular exemptions but doesn't allow for religiously motivated animal killing, it may no longer be considered "generally applicable" and would be subject to strict scrutiny. The question would be whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing this type of animal slaughter, and whether the law is the least restrictive means of achieving it. It's a complex issue that would depend on the specifics of the local law.
Hypo 5: Bob believes that his religion requires him to use heroin. He is arrested under Hypofornia's controlled substance laws for possessing heroin. Result: Drug laws are a clear example where a neutral, generally applicable law can be constitutionally applied despite burdening certain religious practices. Avoiding the health and societal dangers of addictive drugs is unquestionably a compelling government interest, and the law is not targeting any specific religion. Bob's free exercise rights do not give him a "get out of jail free" card here.
