The Free Exercise Clause protects the right to practice religion according to individual conscience. Government cannot ban religious practices unless it proves a compelling reason and uses the least restrictive means possible. This protection applies to established religions, minority faiths, and nontraditional beliefs.
The Supreme Court has developed two frameworks for religious practice cases. Under the Sherbert test, government must have a compelling interest to restrict religious exercise and must use the least restrictive means. Under Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court held that neutral laws of general applicability can burden religious practice if they don't target religion. Recent decisions have narrowed Smith, returning closer to strict scrutiny. Courts have ruled in favor of religious objections to military service, mandatory flag salutes, and healthcare mandates conflicting with religious beliefs.
The Free Exercise Clause protects both individual practice and institutional religious freedom. Churches can make employment decisions based on religious doctrine, and religious organizations can maintain doctrinal integrity without government interference. However, religious practice does not exempt individuals from laws of general applicability like tax obligations or workplace safety rules.
The Free Exercise Clause protects conscience and personal dignity by allowing individuals to live according to their religious beliefs. Without it, government could suppress minority religions and force conformity to official orthodoxy.
People often think religious practice can always be limited by neutral laws. In practice, courts apply heightened scrutiny to laws affecting religious exercise, requiring government to prove a compelling need.
The Free Exercise Clause protects conscience and personal dignity by allowing individuals to live according to their religious beliefs. Without it, government could suppress minority religions and force conformity to official orthodoxy.
People often think religious practice can always be limited by neutral laws. In practice, courts apply heightened scrutiny to laws affecting religious exercise, requiring government to prove a compelling need.