What does Employment Division v. Smith (1990) say about free exercise?

• A. Strict scrutiny applies to religious practices.
• B. Neutral laws of general applicability can regulate religious practices.
• C. The government may never regulate religious practices.
• D. Religious beliefs must be accommodated regardless of state interests

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that Free Exercise protection does not automatically shield religious conduct from generally applicable laws. Employment Division v. Smith holds that if a law is neutral toward religion and generally applicable to conduct, the government can enforce it even if it incidentally burdens religious practice, without requiring exemptions for religious motives. In this case, the prohibition on peyote use was a facially neutral, broadly applied criminal law, so denying unemployment benefits to those who used peyote did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This means strict scrutiny does not automatically apply to religious conduct under such laws.

The other options don’t fit because they imply special protection or exemptions that Smith rejected. The decision doesn’t require strict scrutiny for all religious practices, nor does it say government may never regulate religion. And it doesn’t promise accommodation of religious beliefs regardless of state interests; rather, it allows regulation when the law is neutral and generally applicable.