Which decision established that the government cannot require exemptions to criminal penalties for religious conduct under a general law?

Which decision established that the government cannot require exemptions to criminal penalties for religious conduct under a general law?

• 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)

The key idea is how the Free Exercise Clause interacts with neutral, generally applicable laws and whether exemptions for religious conduct are required. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that a law that is neutral and generally applicable can be enforced even if it burdens religious practice, and the government is not obligated to provide exemptions for religious conduct from criminal penalties. This means a state can criminalize conduct that happens to be tied to religious beliefs if the law applies to everyone equally and isn’t tailored to target religion. The ruling rests on preventing the legal system from carving out religious exemptions in every case, which would undermine the general enforceability of laws. Reynolds addresses belief versus action, ruling that religious belief cannot be the basis to avoid laws, but it doesn’t frame the issue as exemptions under a general law. City of Boerne v. Flores deals with whether Congress may attach strict scrutiny to state laws affecting religion (RFRA) and is about the scope of protection, not the question of exemptions under a general neutral law. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores concerns corporate religious rights and the scope of exemptions in the context of federal mandates, not criminal penalties under general laws. The Smith decision is the one that directly establishes that exemptions are not required for religious conduct under a neutral, generally applicable law.

The key idea is how the Free Exercise Clause interacts with neutral, generally applicable laws and whether exemptions for religious conduct are required. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that a law that is neutral and generally applicable can be enforced even if it burdens religious practice, and the government is not obligated to provide exemptions for religious conduct from criminal penalties. This means a state can criminalize conduct that happens to be tied to religious beliefs if the law applies to everyone equally and isn’t tailored to target religion. The ruling rests on preventing the legal system from carving out religious exemptions in every case, which would undermine the general enforceability of laws.

Reynolds addresses belief versus action, ruling that religious belief cannot be the basis to avoid laws, but it doesn’t frame the issue as exemptions under a general law. City of Boerne v. Flores deals with whether Congress may attach strict scrutiny to state laws affecting religion (RFRA) and is about the scope of protection, not the question of exemptions under a general neutral law. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores concerns corporate religious rights and the scope of exemptions in the context of federal mandates, not criminal penalties under general laws. The Smith decision is the one that directly establishes that exemptions are not required for religious conduct under a neutral, generally applicable law.