Religion Clauses in the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause Wall of separation quote not in the Constitution itself, but in Jefferson s writings. Reasons for Establishment Clause: Worldly corruptions might influence the church if not separated from outside influences. Safeguard secular interests against religious incursions Both interests would be advanced by not entrenching any religious beliefs, thereby allowing competition amongst religious sects for following amongst the people. Free Exercise Clause Stops the government from stopping a religious activity because it is a religious activity. But does not generally applied to rules of general applicability.
Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith Smith was fired from a government job for abusing peyote (a controlled substance) in accordance with his religion. Can a person be disciplined for violating a rule of general applicability even though his religion requires him to engage in that activity? Answer: Yes! An individual s religious policy cannot be used to excuse failing to comply with an otherwise valid law. Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to ignore existing law. The law would be a constitutional violation only if it were promulgated for the purpose of preventing a religious activity.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah The church, practicing their religion of Santeria, planned to practice animal sacrifices in accordance with its religion. In response, the municipality passed ordinances that prohibited this type of animal sacrifice. Unlike the Employment Division case, this ordinance was clearly targeted against a particular religious practice. May animal sacrifices be prohibited by local zoning ordinances even though they are a religious activity? Answer: No! Since this rule was targeted towards religious activity, it restricts the fundamental right and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny. The ordinances at issue here were not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
Federal Statutes to Protect Religion Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Passed in 1993, it required all state and federal laws to have a compelling interest in order to prevent any religious activity (even if this was a law of general applicability). This law was struck down as apply to the states in City of Borne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), because Congress did not have the authority to expand the rights in the Constitution as apply to the states. The RFRA may still may apply to the federal government. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) Passed in response to the City of Borne case. States that federal and state land use and prisoner treatment decisions that infringe on religion must pass strict scrutiny. Also challenged in
Cutter v. Wilkinson Under the RLUIPA, state prisoners demanded certain religious accommodations from the Ohio Department of Corrections. The appellate court had struck down the relevant section of the RLUIPA as violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Can the federal government use its spending power to encourage states to accommodate the religious needs of prison inmates? Answer: Yes! The RLUIPA does not privilege any particular faith or disadvantage anybody of faith or lack thereof. Merely establishing rules that accommodate people s faith, whatever that faith may be, does not violate the Constitution.