Also known as:law of general applicability · generally applicable laws · laws of general application · generally applicable statutes
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statute or regulation that applies uniformly to all persons or conduct within its scope without singling out particular groups or activities for special treatment. Such laws trigger only rational basis review when they incidentally burden religious exercise because they contain no system of individualized exemptions and do not target religion.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Peyote Use Triggers Benefit Denial
Luke Latham, a member of a Native American church, ingested peyote during a religious ceremony and was fired from his job at a state agency. The state denied unemployment benefits under a criminal prohibition on controlled substances that applied to every employee regardless of motivation. Because the prohibition was neutral and contained no discretionary exemptions, the denial of benefits stood.
Landmark Ordinance Faces Challenge
Lorenzo Lugo sought to expand a church building in a historic district. City officials denied the permit under a generally applicable zoning law that required permits for any structure over a certain size. The law contained no religious carve-outs and applied equally to secular and religious projects alike.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
City of Boerne v. Flores521 U.S. 507 (1997)
Animal Sacrifice Ban Examined
Layla Lane operated a religious center that performed animal sacrifices as part of its rituals. The city enacted an ordinance banning ritual animal slaughter while exempting licensed commercial slaughterhouses. Because the ordinance targeted religious conduct rather than applying across the board, it failed general applicability.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah508 U.S. 520, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 124 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1993)
Medical Device Regulation Applied
Lars Lindstrom received a defective pacemaker manufactured by a company subject to federal device regulations. State tort claims proceeded because the federal scheme did not preempt generally applicable state product liability rules that applied to all manufacturers equally.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996)
Appellate Counsel Requirement
Leah Lamb was convicted of a felony and sought appointed counsel for her first appeal. The state provided counsel only to indigent defendants in capital cases under a rule that applied uniformly to all noncapital appeals regardless of the defendant's resources.
Douglas v. California372 U.S. 353 (1963)
Broadcast Disclosure Dispute
Latoya Lane, a radio host, aired a recording of an illegally intercepted cellular conversation between two union officials. A federal statute prohibiting disclosure of such communications applied to every person who obtained the recording, whether through lawful or unlawful means.
Bartnicki v. Vopper532 U.S. 514 (2001)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a law with exemptions cease to be generally applicable?+
A law ceases to be generally applicable when it creates a system of individualized, discretionary exemptions that officials may grant on a case-by-case basis. Once such exemptions exist for secular reasons, the government must justify denying comparable religious exemptions under strict scrutiny.
Supporting sources
Does a facially neutral law always qualify as generally applicable?+
No. A facially neutral law is generally applicable only if it applies across the board without selectively burdening religious conduct or granting officials discretion to excuse secular but not religious noncompliance. Evidence of targeting or an exemption scheme that favors secular interests removes the law from the general applicability category.
Supporting sources
What level of scrutiny applies to neutral laws of general applicability that burden religion?+
Rational basis review applies. The Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from such laws because they do not target religion and impose only incidental burdens.
Supporting sources
494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990)Constitutional Law
…today gives no convincing reason to depart from settled First Amendment jurisprudence. There is nothing talismanic about neutral laws of general applicability or general criminal prohibitions, for laws neutral toward religion can coerce a person to violate his religious conscience or intrude upon his religious duties just as effectively as laws…