Which case addressed the free exercise of religion and allowable state regulation?

Which case addressed the free exercise of religion and allowable state regulation?

• A. Lemon v. Kurtzman
• B. Employment Division v. Smith
• C. Lau v. Nichols
• D. Schenck v. United States

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is how the Free Exercise Clause interacts with laws that regulate conduct. The question asks which case shows how the government may regulate activities even when those laws burden religious practice, as long as the regulation is neutral and generally applicable. Employment Division v. Smith addresses this directly. It held that neutral laws of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions or strict scrutiny. In the case, a worker was denied unemployment benefits after using peyote in a religious ceremony; the Court ruled that the prohibition on peyote was a neutral, generally applicable law, so denying benefits did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This clarified that the government can regulate conduct affecting religion if the law isn’t aimed specifically at religion and is broadly applicable. Lemon v. Kurtzman deals with the Establishment Clause and how government aid to religious schools is treated. Lau v. Nichols concerns language rights and equal protection for students with limited English, not free exercise. Schenck v. United States centers on free speech limits during wartime.

The key idea here is how the Free Exercise Clause interacts with laws that regulate conduct. The question asks which case shows how the government may regulate activities even when those laws burden religious practice, as long as the regulation is neutral and generally applicable.

Employment Division v. Smith addresses this directly. It held that neutral laws of general applicability can burden religious practice without requiring exemptions or strict scrutiny. In the case, a worker was denied unemployment benefits after using peyote in a religious ceremony; the Court ruled that the prohibition on peyote was a neutral, generally applicable law, so denying benefits did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This clarified that the government can regulate conduct affecting religion if the law isn’t aimed specifically at religion and is broadly applicable.

Lemon v. Kurtzman deals with the Establishment Clause and how government aid to religious schools is treated. Lau v. Nichols concerns language rights and equal protection for students with limited English, not free exercise. Schenck v. United States centers on free speech limits during wartime.