Quiz #87 -- Two guidelines for determining when a law is not generally applicable

Religion Law Quiz #87

 

Today’s Religion Law Quiz is definitely a tougher one.  Let’s see how you do. 

 

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the Supreme Court stated that “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.”  141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021).  The Supreme Court then went on to identify two specific guidelines for determining that a law is not generally applicable.  What were those two items? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question.  The specific examples are at the beginning of the first and third paragraphs below. 

 

A law is not generally applicable if it “invite[s]” the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing “ ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’ ” Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (opinion of BURGER, C. J., joined by POWELL AND REHNQUIST, JJ.)). For example, in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she would not work on Saturdays. Unable to find a job that would allow her to keep the Sabbath as her faith required, she applied for unemployment benefits. Id., at 399–400, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The State denied her application under a law prohibiting eligibility to claimants who had “failed, without good cause ... to accept available suitable work.” Id., at 401, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (internal quotation marks omitted). We held that the denial infringed her free exercise rights and could be justified only by a compelling interest. Id., at 406, 83 S.Ct. 1790.

Smith later explained that the unemployment benefits law in Sherbert was not generally applicable because the “good cause” standard permitted the government to grant exemptions based on the circumstances underlying each application. See 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citing Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147; Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 401, n. 4, 83 S.Ct. 1790). Smith went on to hold that “where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147); see also Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (same).

 

A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way. See id., at 542–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, for instance, the City of Hialeah adopted several ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice, a practice of the Santeria faith. Id., at 524–528, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The City claimed that the ordinances were necessary in part to protect public health, which was “threatened by the disposal of animal carcasses in open public places.” Id., at 544, 113 S.Ct. 2217. But the ordinances did not regulate hunters’ disposal of their kills or improper garbage disposal by restaurants, both of which posed a similar hazard. Id., at 544–545, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Court concluded that this and other forms of underinclusiveness meant that the ordinances were not generally applicable. Id., at 545–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217.

 

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021)

 

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

 

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

 

Welcome to another riveting episode of Religion Law Podcast, where issues regarding religious freedom and other religion law-related topics are dissected. Your host, Michael Fielding, presents a quiz that aims to enlighten and challenge your understanding of these complex matters. In Quiz 87, we dive into the intricacies of the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In the mentioned decision, the Supreme Court stated that a government acts against neutrality when it doesn't tolerate religious beliefs or restricts practices due to religious nature. Drawing from this case, the podcast subsequently explores two guidelines that determine when a law is not generally applicable. These critical points are intricately explained, providing context and past decisions to paint a clearer picture, all while testing listeners' grasp of the subject matter.

This episode allows listeners to delve deeper into the criteria for a law’s general applicability, with diverse examples to enhance comprehension. We engage with Sherbert v. Verner and Church of Leukemia, The Bible Inc. Versus Hialeah to illustrate both points. Through these, listeners witness how religious and secular conduct can impact a law's general applicability.

Remember, this Podcast aims to educate and inform listeners about the sophisticated world of religion law and is not intended as a source of legal advice. We invite you to share this episode and leave a review if you've learned or gained valuable insight.