The Free Exercise of Religion Clause
An Important Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution
Nov 6, 2009
Though it has been highly disputed throughout United States history, and its bounds have been redefined multiple times, the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution represents one of the most basic and important liberties granted to all American citizens. This clause goes hand in hand with the Establishment Clause, which upholds it. Free exercise means that people are allowed to freely practice religious activities, within reason. There have been a number of landmark Supreme Court cases on the clause.
History of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution
Historically, there was not much need for the Supreme Court to define the bounds of free exercise of religion. The first case regarding the subject was Reynolds v. United States, in 1879. This case saw a Mormon man protesting the government's restriction on polygamy, which he claimed was part of his religious practice. The court, however, ruled against Reynolds and declared polygamy illegal, because if such practices are allowed, then perhaps extreme religious activities, such as human sacrifice would be permissible.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in the 1900s
The clause was relatively undermined until the 1960s, when the "strict scrutiny" standard was employed, which allowed that all religious activities were permissible unless the state had a very compelling interest to restrict certain activities. The Establishment Clause, which states that no law based on religion would be employed by congress, combined with the Free Exercise Clause prevailed for the first time in the 1963 Supreme Court Case Sherbert v. Verner.
Free Practice of Religion and Sherbert v. Verner, 1963
In this case, a woman's employer switched her schedule to a six day work week, which included working on Saturdays, her Sabbath. Sherbert (the employee) filed for unemployment payments after she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. The lower courts denied her claim, but the United States Supreme Court ruled that mandatory work on her Sabbath limited Sherbert's free exercise, and she therefore was awarded the unemployment benefits that she had applied for. After this, the Sherbert Test was implemented to help determine whether or not government actions are permissible according to the Free Exercise Clause.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972
Another landmark Supreme Court case was heard in 1972. When three Amish students under the age of 16 were pulled from school for religious purposes by their parents, and Wisconsin had a law that required mandatory schooling until age 16, the Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Yoder determined that federal and state mandates could not interfere with the free practice of religion of citizens.
That was not the end of First Amendment cases regarding the practice of religion. There have been many since (such as, most notably, Employment Division v. Smith), but by the late 1900s there seemed to be a certain standard that has since been followed. Religious practice is tolerable as long as it does not include harmful or potentially harmful activities (certain drug use, sacrifice, and other such activities that are highly illegal). As long as the practice of religion does not directly interfere with an important (which is a relative term, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court) state or federal mandate, the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause will prevail.
 |
