What is the significance of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1994)?

• A. Government cannot target religious practices; laws must be neutral and generally applicable.
• B. The government may target religious practices with exceptions.
• C. The Court requires a strict scrutiny test for all religious laws.
• D. The Court permits religious practices to be regulated only during emergencies.

Answer: (C)

The central idea is that laws affecting religious practice must be neutral toward religion and generally applicable; the government cannot target a religion or burden its practice through tailored rules. In Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the Court struck down ordinances aimed at the Santeria faith because, although their language looked neutral, the laws were crafted and applied in ways that singled out that religion and treated ritual sacrifice differently from similar secular activities. Since the ordinances were not neutral and not generally applicable, they failed the Free Exercise Clause and could not be sustained without strict scrutiny. This case shows that when the state targets religious practice or applies rules in a way that burdens religion more than other activities, heightened scrutiny applies. The notion that strict scrutiny must be used for all religious laws is too broad, and the idea that regulation is permitted only in emergencies is incorrect.