# data[].attributes.body
Ellie Tachibana
Word Count: 1560

# data[].attributes.body
It is incredibly difficult to define and organize religion and religious faith due to its lengthly history, ties to supernatural and unearthly beliefs, and the many different interpretations that stem from religious texts and teachings. All of these reasons simultaneously emphasize the importance and limitations of the Free Exercise Clause. More than ever, it is important to understand how to interpret a claim under the Free Exercise Clause so the right ruling can be delivered in a way that protects religious and non-religious people. The Exploring Constitutional Conflicts website page says that the first step in interpreting a case is analyzing the belief and how crucial it is to the overall religion, as the court will not deem the case more important than general law if it is not a core belief. In addition, there must be proof that the beliefs are legitimate to the person and to the faith. If the person making these claims say falsities within the religion or they turn out to not be a part of the faith at all, then, of course, the claims will be denied from ruling. There is an emphasis on legitimacy to the faith, since whether the court thinks that the belief is true should not be important to the case.

# data[].attributes.body
There also is an interesting, but not coincidental trend, that favors Christianity and Catholicism above other religions. From these example cases alone, they emphasized the importance of law and order upon Native American and Jewish religions, but for Catholic and Christian religions, they seem to be more lenient. This is not entirely surprising due to America having a long history of ties to Christian beliefs. America is a secular state, but that does not mean that its legal structure is not guilty of religious bias, another element to be evaluated when understanding equality under the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
There seems to be different waves when understanding the relationship between protecting religious freedom and basic law. In the 80s, the Supreme Court had a great amount of suspicions towards those who claimed their case violated the Free Exercise Clause. In 1990, the Smith case caused a shift that encouraged more religious freedom, all the way to the 2020s.

# data[].attributes.body
The Archbishop of San Antonio wanted to own property to expand his church, however, the zoning authorities denied his request. The Archbishop then sued, claiming that this violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The zoning authorities said that the land the Archbishop wanted was a historic preservation site, and countered the lawsuit by claiming that the RFRA was unconstitutional. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court said that RFRA, a law created by Congress, is not allowed to control decisions within the state; therefore RFRA is unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
Goldman, an officer in the United States Air Force, was an ordained rabbi that could not wear his yarmulke while serving due to an Air Force regulation that banned headgear. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court explained that a yarmulke is a clear violation of dress regulations that are important to the military. But in 1987, this decision was reversed and allowed religious apparel so long as it was "neat" and "conservative".

# data[].attributes.headline
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)

# data[].attributes.subject
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020)

# data[].attributes.body
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced an order of classifying "zones" in New York, depending on how many COVID-19 cases existed in certain areas. He restricted areas of worship to have attendance limitations depending on how severe the zones were, and The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn believed this to be a violation of the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court allowed an injunction due to their support of their claims.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Andrew Cuomo mandated that areas with high levels of COVID-19 cases will limit the amount of people allowed inside. The Roman Catholic Diocese sued the order because they claimed it violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Supreme Court supported their claims. The importance of religion as a form of speech is, of course, understandable, but the COVID-19 pandemic is an incredibly precarious and uncertain period, and people need to take great precaution to not infect others. Knowing that the presence of another can cause the spread of COVID-19 made this court decision unpopular with the general public, as the court seemed to prioritize religious freedom over human lives.

# data[].attributes.body
In the case Goldman v. Weinberger, Goldman could not wear his yarmulke when serving in the Air Force due to the Air Force Regulation, and the Supreme Court supported this decision. In my opinion, wearing a yarmulke is perfectly harmless and not as much of a distraction as the judges assume it to be. This case shows how religion can be restricted by the law, and the protection that the First Amendment and Free Exercise Clause should offer.

# data[].attributes.body
Adams, Brooke. “The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Respecting the 1st Amendment, The University of Utah, 12 Sept. 2017, https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/respecting-the-first-amendment/.

"City of Boerne v. Flores." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-2074.

"Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213.

"Fulton v. City of Philadelphia." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123.

"Goldman v. Weinberger." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1097.

Heyman, Steven J. “Reason and Conviction: Natural Rights, Natural Religion, and the Origins of the Free Exercise Clause.” SSRN Electronic Journal, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3623251.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111.

Linder, Doug. “Free Exercise of Religion: Rise of the Compelling State Interest Test.” Exploring Constitutional Conflicts, law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/freeexercise.htm.

"Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20A87.

Strenski, Ivan. “Reflections on Religious Liberty, Free Exercise, and Culture, With Special Attention to James Madison.” Reflections on Religion & Law, vol. 3, no. 1, summer 2020.

“The Right to Believe (or Not).” Freedom Forum, 17 Sept. 2022, www.freedomforum.org/freedom-of-religion/the-right-to-believe/.

# data[].attributes.body
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith is a crucial and incredibly debated case when it comes to matters of religious freedom, the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause. This decision essentially ruled in favor of general law over religious exemption, which made many lawmakers and government officials wonder whether it was a constitutional decision. After this court decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed, which largely unfavored the Smith court decision, stating that it suppresses religious freedom and is biased towards religious beliefs. However, a few years later, this act was put into question since the Supreme Court believed that the interpretation of laws should be limited to just the courts and not Congress (Boerne v. Flores). Many court officials believe that the Smith case should be reevaluated, or even overturned, but no such action has been put into place yet. With recent court decisions, however, the blurring lines between law and religion become more concerning as the Smith case continues to be the biggest proponent against complete religious exemption.

# data[].attributes.headline
Religious Freedom, Freedom of Religion, and Religious Liberty

# data[].attributes.subject
Religious Freedom, Freedom of Religion, and Religious Liberty

# data[].attributes.body
The difficulty of maintaining the balance between religion and the law comes from religion being based entirely on an individual conscience. Normal dictations of logic or reason cannot be implemented so strictly when it comes to determining whether a religious action violates a case or not. The concept of "religious freedom" is defined by this idea, whereas in more recent times, religion has gained a new kind of overall reputation. Religion has grown past just personal beliefs and become something akin to a corporation. Scholar Ivan Strenski writes that "freedom of religion" and "religious liberty" expresses the power of religion within an institutionalized setting, and their ability to participate in politics and govern their own society. There are arguments that explain how these newly established religious systems make past interpretations of this clause obsolete, since courts used to only interpret individual religious freedom, nothing as large-scale as a corporation.

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment basically mentions that there cannot be any law that restricted the "free exercise" of religion, therefore, the "Free Exercise Clause" was born. A clause essentially helps establish a contract, agreement, or law in a more detailed way, whether it would be to determine the length of time or individual rights. This clause explores the extent of the First Amendment by making sure that not only is the act of implementing a religion protected, but the practices and expression are as well. Many believe that this clause is utilized unfairly in courts, with people trying to exempt themselves from general law with matters that are manipulated to seem religiously involved.

# data[].attributes.body
The rights of all people, regardless of religious beliefs, is important to maintain, as American society increasingly becomes more diverse. Religious freedom and expression is still important to maintain as part of the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
However, this should not make religious people exempt from all aspects of general law, especially if their actions are harmful and dangerous to others. The Court should try to reevaluate the Free Exercise Clause and the idea of religious freedom to protect the general public in the fairest way possible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

# data[].attributes.subject
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
Two counselors were fired for using a hallucinogenic drug called peyote due to their participation in a Native American Church. They demanded unemployment compensation, but were denied because their actions were classified under workplace misconduct. When this case went to court, a 6-3 decision was made that religious beliefs do not exempt them from an acceptable and established law.

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment establishes that the suppression of speech—in this case, religious expression—is unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
How can systems of law evaluate cases in a way that maintain fairness and order for religious and non-religious American citizens, while protecting the First Amendment right of religion and the Free Exercise Clause? To what extent are religious exemptions to American laws allowed?

# data[].attributes.headline
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

# data[].attributes.subject
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

# data[].attributes.body
Charlie Craig and David Mullins commissioned a same-sex wedding cake from Jack C. Philips, but he refused because it went against his religious beliefs. Craig and Mullins took this case to court for discrimination charges, but the Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling determined that Philips was mistreated by the Commission, therefore the Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause.

# data[].attributes.body
The Catholic Social Services (CSS) were restricted from their foster care services because their policy of refusing same-sex couples to be foster parents. CSS went to court and accused the City of Philadelphia of violating the First Amendment, specifically the free exercise clause. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed on the side of Fulton because they believed that the Commissioner executed the non-discrimination regulations to his personal discretion.