Quiz #87 -- Two guidelines for determining when a law is not generally applicable

Religion Law Quiz #87

 

Today’s Religion Law Quiz is definitely a tougher one.  Let’s see how you do. 

 

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the Supreme Court stated that “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.”  141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021).  The Supreme Court then went on to identify two specific guidelines for determining that a law is not generally applicable.  What were those two items? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  Here’s how the Supreme Court answered that question.  The specific examples are at the beginning of the first and third paragraphs below. 

 

A law is not generally applicable if it “invite[s]” the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing “ ‘a mechanism for individualized exemptions.’ ” Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (opinion of BURGER, C. J., joined by POWELL AND REHNQUIST, JJ.)). For example, in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963), a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she would not work on Saturdays. Unable to find a job that would allow her to keep the Sabbath as her faith required, she applied for unemployment benefits. Id., at 399–400, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The State denied her application under a law prohibiting eligibility to claimants who had “failed, without good cause ... to accept available suitable work.” Id., at 401, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (internal quotation marks omitted). We held that the denial infringed her free exercise rights and could be justified only by a compelling interest. Id., at 406, 83 S.Ct. 1790.

Smith later explained that the unemployment benefits law in Sherbert was not generally applicable because the “good cause” standard permitted the government to grant exemptions based on the circumstances underlying each application. See 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (citing Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147; Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 401, n. 4, 83 S.Ct. 1790). Smith went on to hold that “where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Roy, 476 U.S. at 708, 106 S.Ct. 2147); see also Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (same).

 

A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way. See id., at 542–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, for instance, the City of Hialeah adopted several ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice, a practice of the Santeria faith. Id., at 524–528, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The City claimed that the ordinances were necessary in part to protect public health, which was “threatened by the disposal of animal carcasses in open public places.” Id., at 544, 113 S.Ct. 2217. But the ordinances did not regulate hunters’ disposal of their kills or improper garbage disposal by restaurants, both of which posed a similar hazard. Id., at 544–545, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Court concluded that this and other forms of underinclusiveness meant that the ordinances were not generally applicable. Id., at 545–546, 113 S.Ct. 2217.

 

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1877 (2021)

 

Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

 

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

 

Welcome to another riveting episode of Religion Law Podcast, where issues regarding religious freedom and other religion law-related topics are dissected. Your host, Michael Fielding, presents a quiz that aims to enlighten and challenge your understanding of these complex matters. In Quiz 87, we dive into the intricacies of the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In the mentioned decision, the Supreme Court stated that a government acts against neutrality when it doesn't tolerate religious beliefs or restricts practices due to religious nature. Drawing from this case, the podcast subsequently explores two guidelines that determine when a law is not generally applicable. These critical points are intricately explained, providing context and past decisions to paint a clearer picture, all while testing listeners' grasp of the subject matter.

This episode allows listeners to delve deeper into the criteria for a law’s general applicability, with diverse examples to enhance comprehen

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where you learn about
religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through a short question-and-answer format.
I'm your host, Michael Fielding.
Let's see how you do on today's quiz.
Welcome to Religion Law Quiz number 87, numero ochenta siete. yeti.

(00:26):
Today's quiz is definitely a tougher one, and so let's just dive into it.
In the Supreme Court's 2021 decision, Fulton v.
City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court stated that,
quote, government fails to act neutral,
excuse me, government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a matter intolerant

(00:47):
of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature, close quote.
The Supreme Court then went on to identify two specific guidelines for determining
that a law is not generally applicable.
What are those two items or those two guidelines? What do you think?

(01:11):
Well, I'm going to give them to you, one and two, and then I'm going to read
what is frankly a little bit of a long citation from the decision.
So the first item, the Supreme Court said a law is not generally applicable
if it invites the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's

(01:33):
conduct by providing a mechanism for individualized exemption.
And then the second item, the Supreme Court said a law also lacks general applicability
if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines
the government's asserted interests in a similar way.

(01:55):
Now, those are two important points, and we want to try to let the water sink in, so to speak.
So I'm going to go back, and I'm going to read the full quote here from the Supreme Court.
And again, I'll have all of this in the show notes so you have the specific citation.
Here's what the Supreme Court said. And again, we're focusing here on the two

(02:18):
guidelines for determining when a law is not generally applicable.
Here's what the court said, quote, a law is not generally applicable if it invites
the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by
providing a mechanism for individualized exemptions.
For example, in Sherbert v.
Verner, a Seventh-day day Adventist was fired because she would not work on

(02:40):
Saturdays. Unable to find a job that would allow her to keep the Sabbath as
her faith required, she applied for unemployment benefits.
The state denied her application under a law prohibiting eligibility to claimants
who had failed without good cause to accept available suitable work.
We held, meaning we, the Supreme Court, held that the denial infringed her free

(03:03):
exercise rights and could be justified only by a compelling interest.
Myth later explained that the unemployment benefits law in Sherbert was not
generally applicable because the good cause standard permitted the government
to grant exemptions based on the circumstances underlying each application.
Myth went on to hold that where the state has in place a system of individual

(03:27):
exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship
without compelling reason.
A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while
permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way.

(03:47):
In Church of Leukemia, the Bible Inc.
Versus Hialeah, for instance, the city of Hialeah adopted several ordinances
prohibiting animal sacrifice, a practice of the Santeri faith.
The city claimed that the ordinances were necessary in part to protect public
health, which was threatened by the disposal of animal carcasses in open public places.

(04:13):
But the ordinances did not regulate hunter's disposal of their kills or improper
garbage disposal by restaurants, both of which posed a similar hazard.
The Supreme Court concluded that this and other forms of under-inclusiveness
meant that the ordinances were not generally applicable, close quote.

(04:33):
So what are the takeaways from today's quiz?
Well, again, we're focusing on when is a law considered to be not generally applicable.
And what the court is saying is that, hey, if the government has set up.
Mechanisms to consider the reason for the person's conduct, and then based on

(04:56):
those reasons, the court can decide or the government can decide whether or
not an exemption is applicable, well, then it's not generally applicable.
Because, you know, anytime you have this kind of subject objective standard
where a government official can say, okay, I think that's applicable.
We'll give you the exemption.
Well, it's not generally applicable, right? It's not,

(05:17):
cutting across applicable to everybody. The fact that there are exemptions means.
In this case, there was this subjective determination being made by a government official.
And then if they're making that, then the exemption would apply.
So it's not generally applicable because this is simply set up as a means that
some can do the conduct and some can't based on the whims of whoever the government

(05:41):
official is that's deciding the issue. So So that explains that point.
Now, the second point is if the law is not generally applicable,
if it prohibits the religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that
undermines the government's asserted interests in a similar way.
And this Hialeah decision is actually a perfect example of how that would play out.

(06:02):
The city of Hialeah banned animal sacrifices, but then they and their stated
reason was essentially undermined by the fact that they didn't regulate how
hunters disposed of carcasses or how restaurants disposed of garbage.
So anyway, interesting stuff here. That does it for today's quiz.

(06:24):
Thank you for listening to today's episode. Remember, religion law quizzes are
for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.
If you have found this episode to be helpful, please share it and leave a review.
Until we meet again, keep being.
Music.