Con Law Case Cards

Front 1

Reynolds v. U.S

Back 1

Justice Waite (1878)

Facts: Fed gov't charged a mormon with the crime of bigamy (Utah territory)

Issue: Whether religious justification can bused for justification of an overt act that is criminal?

Holding: No, enforcement of the criminal law is constitutional.

Reasoning: Although separation of church and state is important, there os not different criminal codes for the conduct of different religious people.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with conduct."

Front 2

Sherbert v. Verner

Back 2

Justice Brennan (1963)

Facts: Seventh Day adventist is denied unemployment for refusing to work on Saturday

Issue:
1) Does this impose a burden on the free exercise of religion? Yes
2) Is such a burden constitutional? No.

Reasoning: Strict scrutiny: gov't must have a "compelling state interest" in which only "the gravest of abuses endangering paramount interests give occasion for permissible limitation" and there must be "no alternative form of regulation that does not infringe on first amendment rights"

Front 3

Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith

Back 3

Justice Scalia (1990)

Facts: Religious peyote smokers were fired from their job for drug use and unable to collect unemployment as a result.

Issue: Does the free exercise clause of the constitution permit drugs used for religious purposes to be within the reach of a general criminal prohibition on such a drug? Yes.

Reasoning: The Sherbert (strict scrutiny) test does not apply unless there are individual assessments of the reasons for relevant conduct.

In this case, this is a law of general applicability, that would be seriously undermined by a presumption of invalidity with regard to religious groups.

Such exceptions accommodating religious drug use should be left to state political processes.

Front 4

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Haileah

Back 4

Justice Kennedy (1993)

Facts: Followers of Santeria religion in FL engage in animal sacrifice. City of Haileah puts laws in place that impose limitations on such sacrifices.

Issue: Are the laws implemented by Haileah constitutional under the free exercise clause? No.

Reasoning: Although laws of general applicability are not subject to strict scrutiny if they incidentally effect religion, this is not a neutral law (has suppression of religious practice as a central objective, proscribes more religious conduct than needed) and is not one of general applicability (underinclusive) The law is therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the Sherbert test, which it does not pass.

Front 5

Gonzales v. O Centro Esperita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegtal (UDV)

Back 5

Ch. Justice Roberts (2006)

Facts: UDV was prosecuted criminally for the importation of hallucinogenic teas for religious purposes.

Issue: Is an injunction against such persecution permitted under the RFRA 1993? YES

Reasoning: Although generally applicably laws did not used to be subject to strict scrutiny (Sherbert test) the RFRA changed that. There must now be a compelling state interest to which the law is narrowly tailored, and the gov't has not met these burdens. Under the RFRA, CSI must be tailored "to the person" which allows for exemptions, not NT because no waiver exemption, see also the use of Peyote exceptions. The reason of "If I let you, then everyone will want to" is not good enough.