Which case held that a neutral law of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions?

Which case held that a neutral law of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions?

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

Answer: (B)

Neutral laws of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions because the Free Exercise Clause permits laws that apply equally to everyone, even if they incidentally affect religious conduct. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that Oregon’s general ban on peyote, applied to all users regardless of religious reasons, could be enforced without providing exemptions for those who use peyote as part of a religious ceremony. The key idea is that the law isn’t aimed at religion itself and is applicable to everyone; therefore it does not trigger an exemption requirement under this standard. This ruling contrasts with cases where the law is tailored to a specific religious practice. When the government law is not neutral or not generally applicable—i.e., it targets religion or religious practices—the Court is more willing to require exemptions or apply stricter scrutiny. Smith thus shifts the test away from automatic exemptions for religious practices under every neutral law, and it helped spur legislative efforts like RFRA to restore a stricter scrutiny for such burdens.

Neutral laws of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions because the Free Exercise Clause permits laws that apply equally to everyone, even if they incidentally affect religious conduct. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that Oregon’s general ban on peyote, applied to all users regardless of religious reasons, could be enforced without providing exemptions for those who use peyote as part of a religious ceremony. The key idea is that the law isn’t aimed at religion itself and is applicable to everyone; therefore it does not trigger an exemption requirement under this standard.

This ruling contrasts with cases where the law is tailored to a specific religious practice. When the government law is not neutral or not generally applicable—i.e., it targets religion or religious practices—the Court is more willing to require exemptions or apply stricter scrutiny. Smith thus shifts the test away from automatic exemptions for religious practices under every neutral law, and it helped spur legislative efforts like RFRA to restore a stricter scrutiny for such burdens.