Free Exercise Clause

Those new rules were widely condemned for infringing on the Free Exercise Clause.

Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clause does not require the obliteration of all our religious traditions.

Free Exercise Clause.

The second part is the Free Exercise Clause which states "congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religious practices".

Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause.

Instead, the Court again held that a "neutral law of general applicability" generally does not implicate the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

We turn next to a second requirement of the Free Exercise Clause, the rule that laws burdening religious practice must be of general applicability.

During the twentieth century, many major cases involving the Free Exercise Clause were related to Jehovah's Witnesses.

We hold that such an exclusion from an otherwise inclusive aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

While the Establishment Clause seems to get most of the attention today, often ignored is the equally important Free Exercise Clause.

Free Exercise Clause; Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

These two clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, are frequently in tension.

The first case to closely examine the scope of the Free Exercise Clause was Reynolds v. United States in 1879.

The first phrase is known as the Establishment Clause, while the second is called the Free Exercise Clause.

The majority opinion effectively created the Sherbert Test, determining whether government action runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment implies no requirement for someone to be affiliated to an official church - therefore leaving some ambiguity.

Jay Bybee, Religious Liberty Under the Free Exercise Clause.

The Court read the Free Exercise Clause as protecting religious practices, but that didn't protect Reynolds', practices which were crimes.

(For example, does the Free Exercise Clause require Congress to exempt religious pacifists from conscription into the military?)

Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause.

The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause.

She agreed with the Court's initial premise that the Free Exercise Clause applied to religiously motivated conduct as well as religious beliefs.

It is this noncontroversial principle, that the Free Exercise Clause requires neutrality and general applicability, that is at issue here.