# data[].attributes.body
In 1979, the case Frank v. Alaska was brought before the Alaskan Supreme Court. In this case, it details that local authorities violated the Athabascans right to exercise their religion practices freely. For the Athabascans, an indigenous tribe located in Central Alaska, it is a customary practice to perform a known sacred ritual after the death of a beloved. The ceremony consists of a large feast which is consumed after the funeral of a deceased member and in 1979, a young man named Delnor Charlie had passed away. In preparation for the customary ceremony, a group of men, including the defendant in this case, Carlos Frank, hunted a cow moose for consumption at the ceremony. The consumption of a cow moose during this particular ceremony is an integral part of this religious tradition. Frank had admitted to state officials that he hunted and transported the cow moose. After further investigation, local authorities  charged the defendant for illegal hunting and unlawful transportation of the animal. Prosecutors argued that the moose was killed outside of open season, a designated time frame enforced by state officials that allows licensed hunters to hunt in particular vicinities.

A former precedent had  been established in Sherbert v. Verner  may have had an impact on Judge Clayton’s ruling in this particular case. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963) it was decided that the First Amendment requires the government to allow exceptions for religious entities in their religious practices.  In Frank v. Alaska, Judge Clayton ruled in favor of the defendant, Carlos Frank stating that, “the funeral potlatch is an integral part of the cultural religious belief of the central Alaska Athabascan Indian”(Linder). This means that Frank’s actions were  protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment given his actions in hunting and transportation of the cow moose was considered a legal action in the eyes of the court as it was Frank's the intent to use the cow moose in order to exercise a sacred and religious practice.

# data[].attributes.body
"Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1989/88-1213. Accessed 18 May. 2021.
"Fulton v. City of Philadelphia." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123. Accessed 18 May. 2021.
Garnett, Richard. “Justice Scalia, Religious Freedom, and the First Amendment.” University of Norte Dame Law School, 30 Aug. 2016.
Linder, Doug. Frank vs Alaska, law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/frank.html.
"Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20A87. Accessed 18 May. 2021.

# 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
In the 1990 Supreme Court case titled Employment Division v. Smith, two Native American men were fired from their job for the consumption of  the illegal drug peyote during a religious ceremony. When attempting to receive unemployment aid, they were rejected due to being fired for "workplace misconduct," and thus deemed ineligible. The men then sued for their denial, stating that it was an abuse of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment ("Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith." n.d.).
The Court decided that this was a neutral law, and that there could not be religious exemptions. Justice Scalia announced in his landmark majority opinion that "the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws that burden the exercise of religion" (Garnett 2016). The Court in Smith is unwilling to allow for exceptions due to the fear of this being abused by the public. However, this then forces the religious to then adapt to the wills of the nation's laws, except in places where religion is directly targeted. This back and forth of the Court's willingness to allow exceptions continues through the decades, and even to today’s crisis around the COVID-19 pandemic.

# 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
Amidst the initial phase of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic,  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo enforced heavy regulations that limited the capacity and greatly reduced the number of  participants allowed to attend religious ceremonies and events hosted by their chosen place of worship. Governor Cuomo's course of action to enact these new regulations was done by dividing New York into various zones. 'Red' zones, 'orange' zones, and 'yellow' zones had varying degrees of attendance allowed based on the COVID rates in the area. The Catholic Diocese, as well as two Jewish synagogues, sued in order to block this enforcement, stating it violated their First Amendment right to free exercise ("Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo." n.d.). Based on the precedent set in Smith, the Court would have blocked this attempt by the places of worship since this was a neutral law that applied to all non-essential locations. However, in a 5-4 decisionk the Court decided that there was "a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claims, denial of relief would lead to irreparable injury, and granting relief would not harm the public interest" ("Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo." n.d.). This opens up the door for the Court to soon replace the jurisprudence set in Smith. It no longer matters the ever-seeming neutrality of a law, as the Court will now be able to allow exceptions to laws that were not specifically targeting religious but also secular insitutes.

# data[].attributes.body
[Not Yet Decided]
In 2018, the city of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children's in foster homes due to their regulations of not placing with same-sex couples. CSS sued the city stating that there regulation was based on religious beliefs about same-sex marriage, and not on any sort of lack of qualification. They stated that by the city blocking their rights based on this religious belief was a violation of their First Amendment rights. CSS must prove that this law is not generally applicable and neutral, and in fact targets their religious belief. It also causes the Court to revisit their decision in Smith on whether or not they may allow for exceptions in neutral laws ("Fulton v. City of Philadelphia." n.d.).
Based on the recent findings in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Court has shown a tendency to granting exceptions to seemingly neutral laws. Furthermore, with the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett the Court now has a 6-3 Conservative majority, which is likely to favor the freedom of Free Exercise.