The Free Exercise Clause

The second “Religion Clause” in the First Amendment of the Constitution states that the “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” While this statement seems simple and straightforward, it has also been the subject of several Supreme Court cases. Comparatively speaking, however, there have been fewer “free exercise” cases than there have been “establishment” cases, largely because the vast majority of free speech and assembly cases also apply to religious exercise.

There have been, though, a handful of significant religious exercise cases that have come before the Court. In most of these cases, the Court grappled with the definition of “exercise.” What kinds of activities are protected by the First Amendment? Which kinds of activities go too far, harm other individuals or society, amd ought to be limited?

When deciding free exercises cases and speech and expression cases, the Supreme Court tends to weigh the balances heavily in favor of the individual. First Amendment rights are generally considered so important to the individual that the government must generally demonstrate a “compelling state interest” before it can constitutionally limit them. Some of the highlights include:

• In West Virginia v. Barnette the Court ruled that the children of a Jehovah’s Witness family could not be required to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with other children in school.
• In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court found that the state’s requirement that children stay in school until the age of sixteen violated the religious liberties of an Amish family that wanted to school their children at home after the eighth grade.
• The Court has ordered that unemployment benefits be paid to a Seventh-Day Adventist who would not accept a job working on Saturdays (Sherbert v. Verner).
• The Court has repeatedly rejected any kind of religious tests for public office holders, even rejecting laws which bar ordained ministers from holding office. In these cases, states or local governments had claimed there was a need to prevent too much religious influence on government. However, the Court ruled that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause for religious individuals to serve as elected officials.
• In a variety of cases, the Court has ruled that certain practices, even when motivated by religious belief, are not covered by the First Amendment. These include illicit drug use in religious ceremonies, the practice of polygamy, or the refusal to pay taxes for religious reasons.