Also known as: neutral, generally applicable · neutrality and general applicability · Smith standard · free exercise neutrality test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard for evaluating laws under the Free Exercise Clause under which a regulation is neutral when it regulates conduct without reference to religion and generally applicable when it applies uniformly to all comparable activities. Laws meeting this standard are subject only to rational basis review even if they incidentally burden religious exercise.
Noah Nakamura, a member of a Native American church, was fired after ingesting peyote during a religious ceremony. The state denied his unemployment claim under a criminal prohibition on controlled substances that applied to all employees regardless of motivation. Because the prohibition regulated conduct without reference to religion and reached every user equally, it remained neutral and generally applicable.
Nolan Nunez's religious group performed ritual animal sacrifices in private homes. City ordinances banned such killings only when tied to religious ceremonies while permitting secular slaughter for food and pest control. The selective prohibition on religious conduct showed the rules were neither neutral nor generally applicable.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nestor Navarro's Christian student organization required members to affirm its statement of faith. The law school enforced an all-comers policy requiring every registered group to accept any student regardless of belief. The policy applied uniformly to all student groups and made no reference to religion, rendering it neutral and generally applicable.
Nina Nielsen's church sought to expand its building in a historic district. The city applied its neutral landmark rules to every property owner and denied the permit on secular preservation grounds. Because the ordinance regulated all structures without targeting religious use, it qualified as neutral and generally applicable.
Nia Nkosi, a baker, declined to create a cake for a same-sex wedding on religious grounds. The state civil rights commission enforced its public-accommodations law against all businesses offering goods to the public. The law's uniform application to every vendor without religious reference kept it neutral and generally applicable.
Nikhil Narayan, a public-school football coach, knelt and prayed silently after games. The district disciplined him under a policy barring all employees from visible religious conduct while on duty. The policy reached every form of religious expression equally and contained no religious reference, making it neutral and generally applicable.
A law fails this standard when it singles out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment or grants secular exemptions while denying comparable religious ones. Selective enforcement or underinclusive coverage that burdens only religious practice removes the law from rational-basis review.
No. A narrow medical exemption tied to objective physical constraints does not render a rule non-neutral or non-general when the rule otherwise applies uniformly to all persons regardless of belief. Courts distinguish such categorical health carveouts from individualized secular exemptions that invite religious discrimination.
Rational basis review applies. The government need only show a legitimate interest rationally related to the rule. No compelling interest or narrow tailoring is required even when the law incidentally burdens sincere religious practice.
When a rule is gerrymandered to cover only religious conduct while leaving analogous secular activity unregulated, it is neither neutral nor generally applicable. Strict scrutiny then applies and the government must prove a compelling interest pursued through the least restrictive means.
…free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds. Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual’s religion was United States v. Lee , 455 U. S., at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his…