Religious freedom and administrative enforcement
Religious Freedom and Administrative Enforcement: Overview
Religious freedom refers to the right of individuals or groups to practice their religion without undue interference or restriction from the government. It is protected by constitutional provisions in many countries (such as the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution).
Administrative enforcement involves government agencies enforcing laws and regulations, such as public health, safety, zoning, or education rules. Sometimes these regulations come into conflict with religious practices.
The challenge: How do courts reconcile the government’s need to enforce laws (for public welfare) with the protection of religious freedom? Courts often apply tests like strict scrutiny (in the U.S.) or a balancing approach.
Case Law Examples
1. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Two Native American men were fired from their jobs for using peyote (a hallucinogenic drug) during a religious ceremony. Oregon denied them unemployment benefits, citing illegal drug use.
Issue: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to workers fired for using illegal drugs during religious ceremonies?
Holding: The Court held that neutral laws of general applicability (laws that apply to everyone regardless of religion) do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practices.
Explanation: The Court ruled that the state did not have to make an exception for the religious use of peyote because the drug law was not aimed at religion but was a general law.
Impact: This case significantly limited the scope of religious exemptions under U.S. law. After this decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to restore a stricter standard protecting religious exercise.
2. Sherbert v. Verner (1963) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Sherbert was fired because she refused to work on Saturdays due to her religious beliefs. When she applied for unemployment benefits, the state denied her claim, arguing she was not available for work.
Issue: Did the denial of unemployment benefits violate her right to free exercise of religion?
Holding: Yes. The Court applied a strict scrutiny test: the government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve it when burdening religious exercise.
Explanation: The Court found that denying benefits was a substantial burden on her religious exercise and the state failed to show a compelling reason for the denial.
Impact: This case set the standard for evaluating laws that burden religion before the Smith decision altered the landscape.
3. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The city of Hialeah passed ordinances banning animal sacrifice, targeting the Santería religion’s ritual practices.
Issue: Did the city ordinance violate the Free Exercise Clause?
Holding: Yes. The Court struck down the ordinances because they were neither neutral nor generally applicable—they specifically targeted religious conduct.
Explanation: Unlike the Oregon law in Smith, the Hialeah law was explicitly designed to suppress religious conduct and thus failed strict scrutiny.
4. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Amish parents refused to send their children to high school past the eighth grade due to religious beliefs.
Issue: Could the state require Amish children to attend school beyond eighth grade?
Holding: No. The Court ruled that the state's compulsory education law violated the Amish families' rights under the Free Exercise Clause.
Explanation: The Court recognized a compelling interest in education but ruled that the law was not the least restrictive means because the Amish community provided sufficient alternative education consistent with their beliefs.
5. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: A baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple citing religious objections.
Issue: Did the state's anti-discrimination enforcement violate the baker’s religious freedom?
Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the baker on narrow grounds, focusing on the hostility the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed toward the baker’s religious beliefs.
Explanation: The decision did not resolve the broader conflict but highlighted the tension between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.
Summary of Principles
Neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion are usually upheld (Smith).
Laws targeting religion specifically face strict scrutiny and are often struck down (Lukumi).
If laws substantially burden religious exercise, the government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means (Sherbert, Yoder).
Administrative enforcement must avoid hostility or discrimination against religion (Masterpiece Cakeshop).
RELATED Blog
0 comments