Quiz #92 -- Does a city's compelling interest mean it survives strict scrutiny?

Religion Law Quiz #92

 

If a city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination policies will those policies survive strict scrutiny because the city’s interest is compelling? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  That is the wrong question to be asking.  The issue is not whether the city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination policies but rather if it has a compelling interest in denying an exception to the religious entity impacted by the regulation.  Here’s what the Supreme Court has said: 

 

 The City asserts that its non-discrimination policies serve three compelling interests: maximizing the number of foster parents, protecting the City from liability, and ensuring equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children. The City states these objectives at a high level of generality, but the First Amendment demands a more precise analysis. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430–432, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 163 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2006) (discussing the compelling interest test applied in Sherbert and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)). Rather than rely on “broadly formulated interests,” courts must “scrutinize[ ] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants.” O Centro, 546 U.S. at 431, 126 S.Ct. 1211. The question, then, is not whether the City has a compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest in denying an exception to CSS.

 

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1881 (2021) (emphasis added). 

 

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 enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast. In this episode, your host, Michael Fielding, dives deep into the intricacies of religious freedom and other intricate, religion law-related topics using a crisp question-and-answer format.

Episode 92 poses a thought-provoking quiz about non-discrimination policies in cities and their impact on religious groups. The moot question is whether the city's compelling interests to enforce these policies could lead to these policies surviving strict scrutiny, or if there are deeper considerations to explore. With reference to the Supreme Court's verdict in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Fielding explicates the key issue which is not solely about the city’s compelling interest in enforcing non-discrimination policies in general, but whether it has a compelling interest in denying an exception to a religious entity impacted by the regulation.

The episode successfully unravels the Supreme Court's instruction that determining whether a particular regulation passes constitutional muster hinges on whether the city's compelling interest justifies the denial of an exception to the impacted religious entity. Sharing these deep insights, Fielding continues his mission to inspire listeners to be an influence for good in the world through a deeper understanding of religious law.

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 92, numero 90 dos.

(00:24):
If a city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination
policies, will those policies survive strict scrutiny because the city's interest is compelling?
What do you think? I know that question almost feels circular.
I'm going to read it to you one more time.

(00:45):
If a city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing its non-discrimination
policies, Will those policies survive strict scrutiny because the city's interest is compelling?
What do you think?
Well, according to the Supreme Court, that is the wrong question to be asking.

(01:06):
The issue is not whether the city has a compelling interest in generally enforcing
its non-discrimination policies,
but rather if it has a compelling interest in denying an exception to a religious
entity impacted by the regulation.
Now, here's what the Supreme Court said in Fulton v.
City of Philadelphia, quote, The city asserts that its nondiscrimination policies

(01:30):
serve three compelling interests, maximizing the number of foster parents,
protecting the city from liability,
and ensuring equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children.
The city states these objectives at a high level of generality,
but the First Amendment demands a more precise analysis.

(01:54):
Rather than rely on broadly formulated interests, courts must scrutinize the
asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants.
The question, then, is not whether the city has a compelling interest in enforcing
its non-discrimination policies generally, but whether it has such an interest

(02:15):
in denying an exception to CSS, close quote.
So, what is the takeaway here?
Well, the takeaway is the Supreme Court is instructing that when the city has
a compelling interest, the question is,

(02:36):
does that compelling interest mean that the, or does the city have a compelling
interest in denying an exception to the religious entity impacted by the regulation?
That is the key question to be asking when trying to determine whether or not
the particular regulation passes constitutional muster.

(03:20):
Keep being an influence for good.
Music.