508 U.S. 520 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v.

Hialeah June 11, 1993

FACTS:
- The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria.
Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be
cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten.
- Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the
city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited
possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed
activities.
- The District Court ruled for the city. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE(s):
1. W/N the city ordinances violate the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution?

HELD:
1.
- Yes. Judgment of the lower court reversed.
- The protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some
religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons. If
the object of the law is to restrict or infringe upon practices because of their religious motivation,
the law is not neutral and it is invalid unless it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly
tailored to advance that interest.
- The record in this case compels the conclusion that suppression of the Santeria worship service
was the object of the ordinances. Here, religious practice is being singled out for discriminatory
treatment. A law burdening religious practice that is not neutral or not of general application must
undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny. Where the government restricts only conduct protected by
the First Amendment of the Constitution and fails to enact feasible measures to restrict other
conduct producing substantial harm or alleged harm of the same sort, the interest given in
justification of the restriction is not compelling. Therefore, the city ordinances violate the Free
Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

DOCTRINE(s)/KEY POINT(s):
- A law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest if
it is neutral and of general applicability. However, where such a law is not neutral or not of general
application, it must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny: It must be justified by a compelling
governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Neutrality and
general applicability are interrelated, and failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that
the other has not been satisfied.