LCB10_3_PETERSON.DOC
8/13/2006 5:16:31 PM
701
EXCEPTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH:
A NEED FOR CHANGE
by
Jack Peterson*
Employment Division v. Smith states that a facially neutral law that
indirectly has a negative impact on an individual’s Free Exercise of
religion need only be subjected to rational relationship scrutiny to be
found constitutional. There are two exceptions to this rule. One is in the
unemployment benefits context and the other is where the Free Exercise
claim is combined with other constitutional claims. These exceptions
receive strict scrutiny. This Comment discusses how the two exceptions to
Smith inadequately protect an individual’s Free Exercise rights and
concludes that all Free Exercise claims should be evaluated under
intermediate-level scrutiny. This strikes the proper balance between the
need to protect the individual’s Free Exercise rights and the need to
allow states to pass neutral, generally applicable laws.
I.
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................701
II.
1963−1990: STRICT SCRUTINY—SHERBERT V. VERNER .................705
III.
1990−PRESENT: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH.........................707
IV. CIRCUIT COURTS’ APPLICATION OF THE SMITH
EXCEPTIONS...........................................................................................710
A. Hybrid-Rights Exception Is Mere Dicta ............................................711
B. Second Claim Must Be Independently Viable ....................................713
C. Second Claim Must Be Colorable......................................................715
V.
SOLUTIONS TO THE ADJUDICATION OF FREE EXERCISE
CLAUSE CASES ......................................................................................716
A. Apply Strict Scrutiny ......................................