Free Exercise of Religion
Constitutional Law · Lesson 10
Free Exercise of Religion
這一課問的是：政府行為是否負擔宗教實踐？並能否通過 Smith / Lukumi 審查？
Actor
Act
Object
Standard
Consequence
Issue · what this lesson is really about
Does a government action burden religious exercise — and if so, does it survive review under Smith / Lukumi?
這一課問的是：政府行為是否負擔宗教實踐？並能否通過 Smith / Lukumi 審查？
Trigger words & phrases that should flag this issue:
religious beliefneutral lawaccommodationreligious exemptionworship
Core Terminology · 7 must-know
Tap a card to flip and reveal the meaning.
free exercise
Tap to see meaning
First Amendment right to practice religion.
宗教自由實踐。
neutral and generally applicable
Tap to see meaning
Smith: such laws need only rational basis even if burdening religion.
中性、普遍適用 → 合理依據。
Lukumi
Tap to see meaning
Targeted laws aimed at religious practice face strict scrutiny.
Lukumi：針對宗教之法律嚴格審查。
religious accommodation
Tap to see meaning
Legislative or executive carve-outs from generally applicable laws.
宗教例外。
hybrid claim
Tap to see meaning
Free-exercise plus another constitutional claim may revive Sherbert strict scrutiny.
混合主張。
Rule Sentence · the workhorse
Under Employment Division v. Smith, a neutral law of general applicability that incidentally burdens religious exercise need only satisfy rational basis; under Lukumi, laws that target religious practice or are not generally applicable face strict scrutiny.
Sentence Anatomy · 5 roles, 5 colors
Every rule sentence breaks into five visual roles.
Actor 行為人government政府
Act 行為applying a law burdening religion適用負擔宗教之法
Object 對象religious exercise宗教實踐
Standard 法律標準Smith neutrality + general applicabilitySmith 中性普適
Consequence 後果rational basis or strict scrutiny合理依據 或 嚴格
Casebook Snapshot · a real American case
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Holding. City ordinances targeting religious animal sacrifice — drafted to apply only to Santeria practitioners while exempting commercial slaughterhouses — were neither neutral nor generally applicable; they faced strict scrutiny, which they could not survive.
Why it matters. Lukumi cabined Smith: laws that target religion get strict scrutiny.
Lukumi 限縮 Smith：針對宗教之法律嚴格審查。
Common Mistakes · what trips students
✗ 所有宗教例外都受 strict scrutiny。
✓ Post-Smith, neutral and generally applicable laws get rational basis.
Smith 後中性普適法律為合理依據。
✗ RFRA 仍適用於州。
✓ Boerne: RFRA does not bind states; many states have their own RFRAs.
Boerne：RFRA 不拘束州。
Mini IRAC · build the Application
Issue. Does a state statute denying unemployment benefits to claimants who refuse Saturday work for religious reasons violate the Free Exercise Clause?
Rule. Under Lukumi (and Sherbert in the unemployment context), laws individually evaluating religious claimants and burdening their religious exercise face strict scrutiny.
Application (model). The state denies unemployment benefits to a Sabbatarian who refused Saturday shifts on religious grounds while granting individualized exemptions for non-religious reasons. Because the state's individualized assessment of the claimant's reasons targets religious practice rather than applying a generally applicable rule, the fact that exemptions are routinely granted for non-religious reasons means the law is not generally applicable as to religious claimants.
Pick the right element for each blank:
g1.
g2.
g3.
Conclusion. Therefore, strict scrutiny applies and the denial likely violates Free Exercise.
MBE Check · multiple choice
A state law generally prohibits use of peyote. A Native American religious sect sues for an exemption to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Under current doctrine, what result?
Practice Drill · tap to build the rule
Drop the chips here in correct order:
Tap chips to add → tap chips in the target to remove: