What is the Smith decision effect on free exercise challenges to generally applicable neutral laws?

What is the Smith decision effect on free exercise challenges to generally applicable neutral laws?

• A. If a law is neutral and generally applicable, it is typically not subject to strict scrutiny.
• B. Such laws are always subject to strict scrutiny.
• C. The government may never apply free exercise exemptions.
• D. Free Exercise challenges require showing a compelling interest.

Answer: (A)

Neutral toward religion and generally applicable laws are treated by the Free Exercise Clause as not requiring strict scrutiny. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that if a law is neutral in its terms and generally applicable to everyone, a person cannot obtain a exemptions from it simply because it burdens religious exercise; such laws can be enforced without applying strict scrutiny, and the government’s objective just needs to be legitimate and the means reasonable. This is why the statement that a neutral, generally applicable law is typically not subject to strict scrutiny is the best answer. The other options overstate the protection in this situation: strict scrutiny does not automatically apply to neutral, generally applicable laws; exemptions can be available in other contexts (and RFRA later sought to restore strict scrutiny for all free exercise claims); and requiring a compelling interest is the test only under strict scrutiny, not for neutral and generally applicable laws.

Neutral toward religion and generally applicable laws are treated by the Free Exercise Clause as not requiring strict scrutiny. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that if a law is neutral in its terms and generally applicable to everyone, a person cannot obtain a exemptions from it simply because it burdens religious exercise; such laws can be enforced without applying strict scrutiny, and the government’s objective just needs to be legitimate and the means reasonable. This is why the statement that a neutral, generally applicable law is typically not subject to strict scrutiny is the best answer. The other options overstate the protection in this situation: strict scrutiny does not automatically apply to neutral, generally applicable laws; exemptions can be available in other contexts (and RFRA later sought to restore strict scrutiny for all free exercise claims); and requiring a compelling interest is the test only under strict scrutiny, not for neutral and generally applicable laws.