Jonah Patel
The Free Exercise Clause is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause protects religious liberties by prohibiting government interference with how individuals exercise their religion. The interpretation and application of the Free Exercise Clause by the Supreme Court has evolved over time, with the Court sometimes applying a broad or narrow interpretation depending on the specific case and context. The Free Exercise Clause is one of two religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment, the other being the Establishment Clause, which together support religious freedom while maintaining a separation of church and state.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Part of the US Constitution | First Amendment |
| Date added to the Constitution | 1791 |
| Purpose | Protecting the "free exercise of religion" |
| Prohibits | Governmental intrusion on the exercise of religious beliefs |
| Prohibits | Congress from burdening the free exercise of religion |
| Protects | Right to freely practice one's preferred religion |
| Protects | Religious liberties by prohibiting governmental interference with how one exercises their religion |
| Protects | Right to hold and teach certain religious beliefs |
| Protects | Freedom to believe and freedom to act |
| Does not protect | Use of peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, by members of the Native American Church |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the liberty of individuals to adopt, hold, practice, and change beliefs as they please, according to the dictates of conscience. It prohibits government interference in religious belief and practice. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that laws cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions but may interfere with practices. For example, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The Establishment Clause, on the other hand, bars the government from taking sides in religious disputes or favoring or disfavoring anyone based on religion or belief (or lack thereof). It prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear, but historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, the Supreme Court uses the three-part "Lemon" test to determine whether government assistance to religion violates the Establishment Clause. Under this test, government assistance to religion is permitted only if (1) its primary purpose is secular, (2) it neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
At times, the two clauses have been interpreted as being in conflict with each other. Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court opinions have contended that they are inherently at odds. For example, in cases such as Carson, the Court has required Islamic taxpayers to fund education that denigrates their religion, which some argue amounts to religious favoritism rather than liberty for all. The federal courts, with the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter, help to resolve these conflicts.
The Constitution's Missing Pieces: What's Excluded and Why?
You may want to see also
The Free Exercise Clause and the freedom to act
The Free Exercise Clause, part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protects the freedom to act according to one's religious beliefs. It prohibits government interference in religious practices and ensures that laws do not burden the free exercise of religion. This clause safeguards the liberty of individuals to practice and change their beliefs freely, in alignment with their conscience.
The interpretation and application of the Free Exercise Clause have evolved over time, with the Supreme Court playing a pivotal role in defining its scope. The Court has emphasised that while religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religious actions can be regulated to maintain "public safety, peace or order". This distinction underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding religious freedom and upholding societal interests.
The Free Exercise Clause sets a standard of strict scrutiny, requiring accommodation of religious conduct unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest and employ the least restrictive means to achieve it. This standard ensures that laws do not discriminate against religion in their text, purpose, or effect. For instance, in Sherbert v. Verner, the Court overturned a decision to deny unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as working on Saturdays would violate her religious beliefs.
However, the Court has also clarified that the Free Exercise Clause does not provide a license for individuals to disregard valid and neutral laws. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court ruled that individuals must comply with neutral laws of general applicability, even if they conflict with their religious prescriptions or proscriptions. This ruling underscored that religious exemptions should not allow individuals to become a law unto themselves, contradicting constitutional principles.
The Free Exercise Clause, alongside the Establishment Clause, upholds religious freedom while maintaining a separation of church and state. This dynamic duo safeguards Americans' religious liberties and ensures that the government does not favour or impede any particular religious belief or practice.
Key Elements of Constitution Creation
You may want to see also
The Free Exercise Clause and the freedom to believe
The Free Exercise Clause is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was added in 1791 and prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. The clause reads:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Free Exercise Clause protects the "free exercise of religion", which includes both actions and beliefs, but only those that are connected to religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that while governments can burden religious activities, they cannot burden religious beliefs without subjecting themselves to strict scrutiny. This means that even if a law appears neutral, the Court will apply strict scrutiny if it burdens the free exercise of religion.
The Free Exercise Clause is one of two religion clauses in the First Amendment, the other being the Establishment Clause, which prevents the federal government from establishing an official religion. Together, these clauses support religious freedom while maintaining a separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause has evolved over time, with the Court applying various standards to determine when regulations of religious conduct unduly infringe on constitutionally protected free exercise. For example, in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court overturned a state decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6-day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against her religious beliefs.
The Court's modern-day jurisprudence on the Free Exercise Clause dates back to Cantwell, in which it described the two religion clauses as embracing "two concepts,—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be."
Executive Branch: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![First Amendment: [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61-dx1w7X0L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The Free Exercise Clause and the Supreme Court
The Free Exercise Clause, which is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibits government interference in religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. The text of the clause, which accompanies the Establishment Clause, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The Supreme Court first interpreted the Free Exercise Clause in 1878 in the case of Reynolds v. United States, which concerned the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that otherwise, a range of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice, would be constitutionally protected.
The Free Exercise Clause has been the subject of numerous Supreme Court cases since Reynolds, including Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), in which the Court held that the clause is enforceable against state and local governments. In Sherbert v. Verner, the Court overturned a state Employment Security Commission's decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6-day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against her religious beliefs.
In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This set a precedent that "laws affecting certain religious practices do not violate the right to free exercise of religion as long as the laws are neutral, generally applicable, and not motivated by animus to religion".
The Supreme Court has also considered the Free Exercise Clause in the context of prison regulations and the free exercise rights of inmates. For example, in O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz (1987), the Court held that prison regulations that deprived an inmate of attending a religious service did not violate the Free Exercise Clause as they were justified by "legitimate penological interests."
Electoral College: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
The Free Exercise Clause and the separation of church and state
The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are two parts of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, which is often referred to as the separation of church and state. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion, as long as it does not violate "public morals" or a "compelling" government interest.
The text of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This amendment is the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the separation of church and state. Three central concepts were derived from the First Amendment: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompassing all religions. Citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, and support for religion must be voluntary.
The Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding the taxation of religious activities by minority sects. The Supreme Court has, at various times, applied a broad or narrow interpretation of the clause. In 1940, the Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. In 1987, the Court held in O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz that prison regulations preventing an inmate from attending a religious service did not violate the Free Exercise Clause due to "legitimate penological interests."
In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, a case related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that otherwise, there would be constitutional protection for a wide range of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation."
Executive Branch: Understanding Its Major Components
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Free Exercise Clause is one of two religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The other is the Establishment Clause.
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. It protects the right to freely practice one's preferred religion.
In Sherbert v. Verner, the Court overturned the state's decision to deny unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6-day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against the dictates of her religion.
The Supreme Court's interpretation and analysis of the Free Exercise Clause will continue to evolve as the United States grows. For example, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability".
