Arc of 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause Jurisprudence

Key Questions:

See Ian Millhiser's article on Vox


Groff v. DeJoy, (2023)
Braidwood Management Inc. et al. v. Xavier Becerra et al. (2022) (Need everything) (not assigned in GVPT432)
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania(2020)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)
violate RFRA unless the measure is: the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
attempt to reinstate "compelling interest" standard
Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
facial neutrality does not excuse targeted, distinctive treatment
masked hostility (animus) is disqualifying
Employment Div. v. Smith (1990)
neutral, generally applicable laws may impinge upon religious acts (peyote, polygamy, etc.)
unless a "hybrid case" in which other consitutional rights are present (Yoder) (communicative activity or parental right)
United States v. Lee(1982) (Need everything) (not assigned in GVPT432)
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Government must have a compelling governmental interest to impinge upon the free exercise of religion.
The regulation must be narrowly tailored for accomplishing the governmental interest.
Schbert v. Verner (1963)