Religious Freedom Violation Prosecutions
📌 Overview of Religious Freedom Violations
Religious freedom violations occur when an individual or institution's right to practice their religion freely is infringed upon, either by government action, private actors, or institutions. In the U.S., religious freedom is protected primarily by:
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993: Protects religious exercise from government burdens unless the government shows a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means.
Various state constitutions and statutes also protect religious liberty.
⚖️ Key Legal Concepts
Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals’ right to practice religion without undue government interference.
Establishment Clause: Prevents government from endorsing or favoring a religion.
Compelling government interest: Government must justify actions that burden religious exercise.
Balancing test: Courts weigh religious rights against other public interests.
⚖️ Notable Religious Freedom Violation Cases
1. Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Facts:
Two Native American employees were fired and denied unemployment benefits after using peyote (a controlled substance) during a religious ceremony.
Legal Issue:
Does the Free Exercise Clause protect religious use of illegal drugs, exempting individuals from neutral laws of general applicability?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that the state could deny unemployment benefits because the law prohibiting peyote was neutral and generally applicable, even though it incidentally burdened religious practice.
Significance:
Marked a shift from strict scrutiny to a more lenient standard on free exercise claims.
Led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to provide stronger protections.
2. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)
Facts:
Hobby Lobby, a closely held corporation, objected to providing certain contraceptive coverage mandated by the Affordable Care Act, claiming it violated their religious beliefs.
Legal Issue:
Whether RFRA allows a for-profit corporation to deny contraceptive coverage based on religious objections.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that closely held corporations can exercise religion and that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their religious exercise without a compelling government interest.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of religious freedom protections to corporations.
Clarified that government must show a compelling interest when burdening religious exercise.
3. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Facts:
A Colorado baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple citing his religious beliefs.
Legal Issue:
Did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violate the baker's religious freedom rights under the First Amendment?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, finding that the Commission showed hostility toward his religious beliefs, violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Significance:
Emphasized the need for religious neutrality in government enforcement actions.
Did not fully resolve the conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom.
4. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Facts:
The city passed ordinances targeting animal sacrifices practiced in the Santería religion.
Legal Issue:
Whether these ordinances violated the Free Exercise Clause by specifically targeting religious practices.
Holding:
The Supreme Court struck down the ordinances, ruling that laws targeting specific religious practices are unconstitutional.
Significance:
Reinforced that laws must be neutral and generally applicable.
Established strict scrutiny for laws targeting religion specifically.
5. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012)
Facts:
A teacher at a religious school was fired and claimed religious discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Legal Issue:
Does the First Amendment’s ministerial exception bar employment discrimination claims against religious organizations?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the ministerial exception prevents government interference in employment decisions about ministers.
Significance:
Affirmed religious organizations' autonomy in personnel decisions related to religious roles.
Protected religious institutions from certain employment lawsuits.
6. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)
Facts:
A Catholic foster care agency refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents due to religious objections. The city stopped referring foster children to the agency.
Legal Issue:
Whether the city’s actions violated the agency’s free exercise rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the agency, finding the city's refusal was not neutral and generally applicable.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that governments must accommodate religious exercise unless they have a compelling interest.
Applied RFRA principles even in non-federal cases.
🧾 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Court/Year | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment Division v. Smith | SCOTUS, 1990 | Free exercise & drug laws | Neutral laws upheld | Shift in free exercise protections; led to RFRA |
| Burwell v. Hobby Lobby | SCOTUS, 2014 | Religious objections by corporations | Favored Hobby Lobby | Extended religious rights to corporations |
| Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado | SCOTUS, 2018 | Religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination | Favored baker | Emphasized religious neutrality in enforcement |
| Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye | SCOTUS, 1993 | Laws targeting religious practices | Ordinances struck down | Strict scrutiny for laws targeting religion |
| Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC | SCOTUS, 2012 | Ministerial exception in employment | Religious autonomy upheld | Protected religious institutions from some lawsuits |
| Fulton v. City of Philadelphia | SCOTUS, 2021 | Foster care agency & religious objection | Favored agency | Applied RFRA; governments must accommodate religion |
🔍 Prosecutorial and Judicial Themes
Courts balance religious freedom against other compelling interests like anti-discrimination and public health.
Laws that target religion specifically receive strict scrutiny and are often invalidated.
Neutral laws generally applicable to all may burden religious practice without violating the Constitution (per Smith), but RFRA restores strict scrutiny in federal cases.
Religious organizations enjoy special protections, especially concerning internal governance and employment.
Conflicts arise between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections, often requiring nuanced judicial balancing.
🧩 Conclusion
Religious freedom violation prosecutions and litigation in the U.S. reflect ongoing tensions between individual and institutional religious rights and other societal interests such as civil rights, public health, and equality. Landmark cases illustrate evolving judicial standards and the critical role of statutes like RFRA in safeguarding religious exercise.
RELATED Blog
0 comments