Also known as: free-exercise · free exercise clause · free exercise right · Free Exercise Clause · First Amendment free exercise
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional protection against government laws or policies that prohibit or substantially burden the practice of religion. This protection requires neutrality and general applicability in laws that affect religious conduct. When a law targets religious practice or permits discretionary exemptions favoring secular interests, it triggers strict scrutiny.
Fernando Farrell leads a religious group that performs animal sacrifices as part of its ceremonies. The city enacts an ordinance banning the precise method of slaughter used in those ceremonies while permitting other forms of animal killing. Fernando's group sues, and the court applies strict scrutiny because the ordinance targets religious conduct rather than operating neutrally.
Floyd Franklin's Santeria congregation uses a specific animal-slaughter method in its worship. Local officials pass a rule aimed directly at that method and justify it with animal-welfare concerns that do not apply to comparable secular activities. The court holds the rule invalid because it lacks neutrality and fails strict scrutiny.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Frederick Ferguson loses his job after using peyote during a religious ceremony. State law criminalizes peyote use and denies unemployment benefits to anyone dismissed for violating that law. The court upholds the denial because the criminal prohibition is neutral and generally applicable.
Farid Farahani runs a religious foster-care agency that cannot certify same-sex couples under its faith tenets. City policy allows officials to grant case-by-case exemptions for secular reasons but denies the agency's request. The court subjects the denial to strict scrutiny because the exemption mechanism renders the policy not generally applicable.
Fatima Flores and her Amish community withdraw children from school after eighth grade for religious reasons. The state enforces its compulsory-attendance law until age sixteen. The court grants an exemption because the community's alternative practices satisfy the state's interests while honoring the parents' religious convictions.
Faye Fuller refuses to complete required pesticide training because it involves animal products forbidden by her faith. The state denies unemployment benefits under a worker-safety rule applied to all employees. The court upholds the denial because the rule is neutral and generally applicable.
A law triggers strict scrutiny when it is not neutral or generally applicable, such as when it targets religious conduct or allows officials discretionary exemptions for secular reasons. In those circumstances the government must show the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
Supporting sources
No. A neutral, generally applicable criminal prohibition that incidentally burdens religious practice does not violate the Free Exercise Clause and does not require a religious exemption.
Supporting sources
No. When a state offers generally available benefits for private education, the Free Exercise Clause requires it to treat religious schools the same as nonreligious schools.
Supporting sources
The policy is not generally applicable. Strict scrutiny applies, and the government must justify the denial under that standard.
Supporting sources
…“impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those…