Also known as:generally applicable laws · law of general applicability
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal rule that binds every individual equally regardless of religious affiliation or practice. The rule operates without individualized exemptions or selective enforcement that favors secular conduct over comparable religious conduct.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Unemployment Benefits After Vaccine Refusal
Gerald Gibson worked eight years at Sterling Care hospital with strong reviews. State W required every patient-care employee to receive an annual flu vaccine and allowed medical waivers but no religious ones. After Gibson refused on religious grounds and was fired, the state denied benefits under its neutral misconduct rule. The denial stands because the vaccine mandate applies uniformly without regard to faith.
Material Support Ban on Training
Georgia Gibbs belonged to a group that sought to teach lawful advocacy skills abroad. A federal statute barred all material support to designated organizations and contained no religious carve-outs. Gibbs's proposed training fell within the statute's terms. Enforcement against her religious motivation did not trigger heightened review.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project561 U.S. 1 (2010)
Landmark Permit Requirement
Gregory Gates sought to enlarge a church building in a historic district. City rules required permits for any exterior alteration and applied the same standards to every property owner. Gates received no individualized exemption process. The permit obligation remained enforceable against the religious project.
City of Boerne v. Flores521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Animal Sacrifice Ordinance
Gloria Green planned a religious ceremony involving animal sacrifice inside city limits. The city enacted an ordinance banning all animal killings except for food preparation and applied it to every resident. The ordinance contained no discretionary religious waivers. Because the ordinance singled out religious conduct it failed to qualify as generally applicable.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah508 U.S. 520, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993)
Sodomy Statute Applied Equally
Greta Goldstein was charged under a state criminal statute that prohibited certain private sexual conduct. The statute applied to every adult without regard to the participants' identities or motivations. No religious exemption mechanism existed. The law remained valid as a neutral prohibition of general application.
Bowers v. Hardwick478 U.S. 186 (1986)
School District Boundary Law
Gary Goldman lived within a village whose school district boundaries tracked a single religious community. State law created the district under the same criteria used for every other municipality. The statute contained no religious classification or exemption process. The boundary rule applied uniformly and survived challenge.
Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet512 U.S. 687 (1994)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a policy with discretionary exemptions cease to be generally applicable?+
A policy ceases to be generally applicable once officials may grant case-by-case exemptions for secular reasons such as staffing shortages or operational disruption. The presence of that individualized assessment mechanism requires the government to satisfy strict scrutiny before denying a comparable religious exemption.
Supporting sources
Does a neutral law remain generally applicable when it permits medical but not religious waivers?+
Yes. Medical waivers address objective physical risks rather than personal belief systems. The distinction preserves the law's overall neutrality and breadth, so the rule still qualifies as generally applicable under Smith.
Supporting sources
What level of scrutiny applies once a law is deemed not generally applicable?+
Strict scrutiny applies. The government must demonstrate that denying a religious exemption is necessary to achieve a compelling interest and that the denial is the least restrictive means of doing so.
Supporting sources
494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)Constitutional Law
…held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” United States v. Lee , 455 U. S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring…