Facts of the Case
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.
Questions
Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?
Conclusions
-
Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.
A Fulfillment of Judicial Prophecy: The Clash Between Religious Liberty and Nondiscrimination Law Reaches the Supreme Court
Catholic Social Services (CSS) of Philadelphia has offered services to needy children and families since...
Stormans v. Wiesman: Paths to Strict Scrutiny in Religious Free Exercise Cases
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about Stormans v. Wiesman, a case from the 9th...
Blaine Amendments and the Unconstitutionality of Excluding Religious Options From School Choice Programs
Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the school choice movement and how Blaine Amendments...
The Status of Use-Based Exclusions & Educational Choice After Espinoza
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Why Nineteenth Century Bans on “Sectarian” Aid Are Facially Unconstitutional: New Evidence on Plain Meaning
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article presents original research on the nineteenth century meaning of...