Which case held that neutral laws of general applicability do not require exemptions for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause?

Which case held that neutral laws of general applicability do not require exemptions for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause?

• A. Reynolds v. United States (1878)
• B. Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
• C. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)
• D. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer: (B)

Neutral laws of general applicability do not require exemptions for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause. Employment Division v. Smith shows this by holding that a facially neutral law that generally bans a conduct—even if it burdens religious exercise—does not have to carve out an exception for religious practice as long as the law is neutral and applies equally to everyone. This marks a shift from earlier ideas that religious burdens should be exempted; Smith says that if the law isn’t aimed at religion and is applied generally, it stands, and exemptions aren’t required. The other cases deal with exemptions under different frameworks or contexts: Reynolds v. United States rejects exemptions based on religious duty in the face of criminal law; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores involves exemptions under RFRA for religiously motivated corporate objections, not a neutral generally applicable law; City of Boerne v. Flores concerns RFRA’s application to the states.

Neutral laws of general applicability do not require exemptions for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause. Employment Division v. Smith shows this by holding that a facially neutral law that generally bans a conduct—even if it burdens religious exercise—does not have to carve out an exception for religious practice as long as the law is neutral and applies equally to everyone. This marks a shift from earlier ideas that religious burdens should be exempted; Smith says that if the law isn’t aimed at religion and is applied generally, it stands, and exemptions aren’t required. The other cases deal with exemptions under different frameworks or contexts: Reynolds v. United States rejects exemptions based on religious duty in the face of criminal law; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores involves exemptions under RFRA for religiously motivated corporate objections, not a neutral generally applicable law; City of Boerne v. Flores concerns RFRA’s application to the states.