Also known as: exercises of religion · exercised of religion · exercising of religion · free exercise · religious exercise · free exercise clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The practice or observance of religious beliefs and rituals. The Free Exercise Clause protects this activity from government interference that is not neutral and generally applicable or that fails strict scrutiny when exemptions are available on secular grounds.
Ethan Evans sought to use a state tuition voucher at a religious nursing school that required chapel attendance. The program excluded schools with religious requirements. Ethan sued, claiming the exclusion burdened his religious exercise by denying equal access to a generally available benefit.
Eva Espinosa planned a Santeria ritual involving animal slaughter at her home. The city enacted an ordinance banning that precise method while allowing other animal killings. Eva sued after enforcement, arguing the rule singled out her religious practice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Evelyn Ellison was fired after using peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. The state denied her unemployment benefits under a neutral criminal prohibition on the drug. Evelyn claimed the denial infringed her religious exercise.
Erika Echevarria's religious agency refused to certify same-sex couples. The city allowed case-by-case exemptions for secular reasons but denied her request. Erika sued, asserting the discretionary policy was not generally applicable.
Eileen Epstein withdrew her children from school after eighth grade for religious reasons. The state enforced compulsory attendance until age sixteen. Eileen claimed the law burdened her family's faith-based educational practices.
Edith Eberhardt paid federal taxes used in part for religious school materials. She sued to enjoin the expenditures as violating her religious exercise rights. Edith asserted standing to challenge the funding on free exercise grounds.
A law burdens the exercise of religion when it is not neutral or generally applicable, such as when it targets religious conduct or allows individualized exemptions that officials may grant or deny on secular grounds. Strict scrutiny then requires the government to show a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means.
Supporting sources
No. Neutral and generally applicable criminal prohibitions do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even when they incidentally burden religious practices, so no constitutional exemption is required absent evidence of targeting.
Supporting sources
A policy that permits officials to grant individualized exemptions on secular grounds is not generally applicable. The availability of such discretion triggers strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause because it creates a risk of discriminatory application against religious exercise.
Supporting sources
A compulsory education law must yield when it substantially burdens the free exercise rights of parents whose religion forbids formal secondary schooling and the parents demonstrate a self-sufficient community whose alternative practices satisfy the state's interests.
Supporting sources
…the Obligation of Contracts,” denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures, and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers…