How Courts Handle Religious Freedom Cases: an Accessible Explanation

by

Religious freedom cases represent some of the most complex and consequential legal disputes in modern jurisprudence. These cases arise when individuals, religious organizations, or groups assert that their constitutional or statutory rights to practice their religion have been violated by government action, laws, or policies. Courts play a critical role in adjudicating these disputes, carefully balancing the fundamental right to religious liberty against other important governmental interests and societal needs. Understanding how courts approach these cases provides essential insight into the protection of religious freedom in democratic societies.

The Constitutional Foundation of Religious Freedom

Most religious freedom cases in the United States interpret the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, while the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion,” ensuring the separation of church and state.

These two clauses work together to create a framework that protects religious liberty from two directions. The Free Exercise Clause ensures that individuals can practice their faith without government interference, while the Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring one religion over another or promoting religion generally. This dual protection reflects the Founders’ commitment to both religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

Beyond the federal Constitution, many state constitutions contain their own religious freedom protections, sometimes offering broader protections than the federal standard. Additionally, statutory protections like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provide another layer of legal protection for religious exercise.

The Strict Scrutiny Standard

When a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, courts may apply strict scrutiny, which holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law is necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest,” is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that purpose, and uses the “least restrictive means”. Strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review in the United States.

For several decades beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in all free exercise cases, requiring that a burden on religious exercise must be outweighed by a compelling government interest and be “narrowly tailored” to accomplish the government’s goal. This approach provided robust protection for religious practices and required the government to meet an exceptionally high burden to justify any interference with religious exercise.

Under strict scrutiny analysis, courts examine three key elements. First, the government must identify a compelling interest—one that addresses an actual, concrete problem of significant importance. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored, meaning it must be specifically designed to address that compelling interest without being overly broad. Third, the government must demonstrate that it has chosen the least restrictive means available to achieve its goal, meaning no less burdensome alternative exists that would accomplish the same objective.

The Employment Division v. Smith Decision

In 1990, the Supreme Court pivoted drastically from the strict scrutiny approach in Employment Division v. Smith, which involved Oregon’s refusal to provide unemployment benefits to Native Americans fired for religious use of peyote. The court held that strict scrutiny need not apply to laws of general applicability and should be reserved for laws that single out given religions.

The Supreme Court has held that neutral and generally applicable laws that burden religious practices are constitutional in most cases. This marked a significant departure from previous decades and substantially narrowed the circumstances under which religious exemptions would be granted. Under the Smith rule, if a law applies equally to everyone and doesn’t specifically target religious practice, it generally doesn’t violate the Free Exercise Clause even if it incidentally burdens religious exercise.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Following Smith, Congress acted quickly to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which aimed to restore the strict scrutiny test and was intended to serve as a shield for religious freedom, preventing the government from interfering with Americans’ religious beliefs and practices.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and parallel laws in some states require courts to apply strict scrutiny to laws that substantially burden religious practices. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, unless the government demonstrates that the application of the burden represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest.

RFRA applies to federal government actions, and many states have enacted their own versions of RFRA that apply to state and local government actions. These statutes effectively restore the pre-Smith strict scrutiny standard by statute, even though the constitutional standard under Smith remains more permissive of government burdens on religion. This creates a dual framework where statutory protections often provide greater protection than the constitutional baseline.

How Courts Analyze Religious Freedom Claims

Threshold Questions

Before applying any standard of review, courts must first determine several threshold questions. Is the belief or practice at issue genuinely religious in nature? Courts generally defer to the claimant’s assertion that a belief is religious and avoid inquiring into the theological validity or centrality of particular beliefs within a religious tradition. This deference protects religious autonomy and prevents courts from becoming entangled in theological disputes.

Courts must also determine whether the government action substantially burdens religious exercise. A substantial burden exists when government action puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify their behavior and violate their beliefs, or when it forces them to choose between following their religious precepts and forfeiting government benefits or facing penalties. Minor inconveniences or indirect effects typically don’t constitute substantial burdens.

Neutrality and General Applicability

Under the Smith framework, courts examine whether a law is neutral and generally applicable. A law is not neutral if it targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment or if the object of the law is to suppress or disadvantage religion. A law is not generally applicable if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s stated interests in a similar way.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have scrutinized whether laws treat religious activities comparably to similar secular activities. If a law creates exemptions for secular activities but not for comparable religious activities, courts may find the law is not generally applicable and therefore subject to strict scrutiny. This “most favored nation” approach ensures that religious conduct receives at least as favorable treatment as comparable secular conduct.

Compelling Interest Analysis

When strict scrutiny applies—whether under RFRA or because a law is not neutral and generally applicable—courts must evaluate whether the government has a compelling interest. Not every important government objective qualifies as compelling. The interest must be of the highest order and address an actual, concrete problem rather than a hypothetical concern.

Courts have recognized various compelling interests in religious freedom cases, including protecting public health and safety, preventing discrimination, ensuring the integrity of the tax system, and maintaining order in prisons and other institutional settings. However, the government must provide evidence that the asserted interest is genuinely compelling in the specific context of the case, not merely assert it in the abstract.

Narrow Tailoring and Least Restrictive Means

Even when a compelling interest exists, the government must demonstrate that its chosen means of advancing that interest is narrowly tailored and represents the least restrictive alternative. This requires showing that less burdensome alternatives would not adequately serve the government’s compelling interest.

Courts examine whether the government has considered and rejected less restrictive alternatives, whether exemptions or accommodations would undermine the government’s interest, and whether the government has granted exemptions in other contexts that suggest alternatives are feasible. The existence of numerous exemptions or the government’s failure to enforce a law consistently may indicate that less restrictive means are available.

Recent Developments in Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

The 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term

The U.S. Supreme Court in its 2024-25 term continued to robustly protect religious liberty under the First Amendment. The justices heard arguments in a trio of separate cases involving the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, addressing issues ranging from tax exemptions to parental rights in school curricula.

Parental Rights and Religious Education

The Supreme Court held that public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, likely violated the free exercise clause by requiring elementary students to read books on gender and sexuality affirming gay marriage in conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs—without providing parents with notice or an option to opt out. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Alito wrote that the policy substantially interfered with the right of parents “to direct the religious upbringing of their children” and burdened their right to freely exercise their religion.

This decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor reinforced the principle that the government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill in their children. The case highlights the ongoing tension between public education’s role in promoting certain values and parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Denominational Preferences and Tax Exemptions

When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. In Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, the Supreme Court addressed whether a state could deny religious tax exemptions based on the nature of an organization’s activities rather than its religious character.

The justices held that the state’s decision violated the free exercise clause because in excluding Catholic Charities Bureau, the state did not “maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,'” and exclusions based on theological differences amount to “denominational discrimination”. This decision reinforces that government cannot favor certain religious approaches over others based on theological judgments about what constitutes properly religious activity.

Religious Charter Schools

In 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found the concept of a religious charter school to be unconstitutional at both state and federal levels, holding that allowing St. Isidore to operate as a charter school “would create a slippery slope and what the framers warned against—the destruction of Oklahomans’ freedom to practice religion without fear of governmental intervention”. On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on the case, thereby leaving the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in place.

While the deadlock prevented the Supreme Court from establishing national precedent, the case illustrates the ongoing debate about the boundaries between religious freedom and the Establishment Clause, particularly in the context of public education funding.

Common Types of Religious Freedom Cases

Religious Attire and Symbols

Cases involving religious attire and symbols frequently arise in employment, education, and public accommodation contexts. These disputes may involve employees seeking to wear religious head coverings, students wanting to wear religious jewelry, or individuals seeking religious exemptions from uniform requirements. Courts must balance religious exercise rights against employers’ interests in maintaining dress codes, schools’ interests in promoting safety and discipline, and government interests in maintaining neutrality.

Federal employment discrimination law prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion and requires reasonable accommodation of religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Courts examine whether proposed accommodations would fundamentally alter the nature of the workplace, impose significant costs, or create safety concerns. Similar analyses apply in educational settings, though schools may have greater latitude to regulate student expression.

Conscientious Objections to Laws and Policies

Conscientious objection cases involve individuals or organizations seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws based on religious beliefs. These cases span diverse contexts, including healthcare providers objecting to providing certain medical services, business owners objecting to serving certain customers, and employees objecting to union membership or fees.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act permits a closely held for-profit corporation to deny its employees health coverage of contraceptives based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners, and protecting the free exercise rights of closely held corporations protects the religious liberty of the people who own and control them. This principle from Burwell v. Hobby Lobby extended religious freedom protections to certain for-profit corporations, expanding the range of entities that can assert religious freedom claims.

Courts in these cases must carefully balance religious freedom against other important interests, including preventing discrimination, ensuring access to services, and protecting third-party rights. The analysis often turns on whether exemptions would significantly undermine the government’s regulatory scheme or impose substantial burdens on third parties.

Religious Exemptions from Regulations

Religious organizations and individuals frequently seek exemptions from various regulatory requirements, including zoning laws, licensing requirements, tax obligations, and anti-discrimination laws. These cases require courts to determine whether the regulation substantially burdens religious exercise and whether the government’s interest in uniform application outweighs the burden on religious freedom.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) provides specific protections in two contexts: land use regulations affecting religious assemblies and institutions, and regulations affecting the religious exercise of institutionalized persons. RLUIPA prohibits governments from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

In the land use context, RLUIPA addresses situations where zoning laws or other land use regulations make it difficult for religious organizations to build or operate houses of worship, schools, or other facilities. Courts examine whether regulations treat religious assemblies on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and whether they impose unreasonable limitations on religious exercise.

Disputes Over Religious Land Use

Religious land use cases often involve conflicts between religious organizations seeking to build or expand facilities and local governments enforcing zoning regulations. These disputes may concern the location of houses of worship, the size and design of religious buildings, parking requirements, or restrictions on religious activities in residential areas.

RLUIPA prohibits several specific types of discrimination in land use regulation: imposing or implementing land use regulations that treat religious assemblies or institutions less favorably than nonreligious assemblies or institutions; imposing or implementing land use regulations that discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination; and totally excluding religious assemblies from a jurisdiction or unreasonably limiting religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

Courts applying RLUIPA must determine whether a land use regulation substantially burdens religious exercise. A substantial burden exists when a regulation imposes a significant obstacle to religious practice, such as preventing a religious organization from establishing a presence in a community or forcing it to incur substantial costs to comply with regulations that don’t apply to comparable secular organizations.

Religious Freedom in Institutional Settings

Institutionalized persons, including prisoners, residents of mental health facilities, and others in government custody, retain religious freedom rights despite their confinement. RLUIPA protects the religious exercise of institutionalized persons by prohibiting substantial burdens on religious exercise unless the government demonstrates that the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Common issues in this context include access to religious services and clergy, accommodation of dietary restrictions, permission to possess religious items, and the ability to gather for worship. Courts recognize that institutional settings present unique security and administrative concerns, but these concerns don’t automatically justify denying religious accommodations. The government must demonstrate that denying an accommodation is necessary to maintain security, order, or other compelling institutional interests.

The Ministerial Exception

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses bar lawsuits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws. This ministerial exception, recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, protects religious organizations’ autonomy in selecting and supervising their spiritual leaders.

The ministerial exception reflects the principle that religious organizations must be free to choose who will perform religious functions and teach religious doctrine without government interference. Courts examine whether an employee performs important religious functions, not merely whether they hold a specific title. The exception applies to various positions depending on the nature of the employee’s duties and their role in the religious organization’s mission.

Balancing Religious Freedom with Other Rights and Interests

Religious Freedom and Anti-Discrimination Laws

One of the most challenging areas in religious freedom jurisprudence involves conflicts between religious exercise and anti-discrimination laws. These cases arise when religious individuals or organizations seek exemptions from laws prohibiting discrimination based on characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

Courts must balance the government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination against the burden that anti-discrimination laws impose on religious exercise. The analysis often depends on the specific context: whether the religious entity is a church, a religious nonprofit, or a for-profit business; whether the position or service at issue is closely connected to religious functions; and whether exemptions would significantly undermine anti-discrimination protections.

Some jurisdictions have attempted to balance these interests by providing religious exemptions in certain contexts while maintaining anti-discrimination protections in others. For example, exemptions may be broader for houses of worship and religious schools than for businesses operating in the commercial marketplace. These compromises attempt to protect both religious freedom and equal access to goods, services, and opportunities.

Religious Freedom and Public Health

Public health emergencies can create tensions between religious freedom and government efforts to protect public health and safety. During the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous cases arose involving restrictions on religious gatherings, with religious organizations challenging capacity limits, closure orders, and other public health measures.

Courts examining these cases focused on whether restrictions treated religious activities comparably to similar secular activities. If restrictions allowed certain secular activities while prohibiting comparable religious activities, courts often found the restrictions were not neutral and generally applicable, triggering strict scrutiny. The government’s interest in protecting public health is undoubtedly compelling, but courts required evidence that restrictions on religious gatherings were necessary and that less restrictive alternatives were unavailable.

Religious Freedom and Third-Party Harms

A recurring question in religious freedom cases is how to account for harms to third parties when granting religious exemptions. When a religious exemption would impose costs or burdens on others—such as employees, customers, or beneficiaries of government programs—courts must consider whether those third-party harms affect the analysis.

Some argue that significant third-party harms should weigh against granting exemptions, as religious freedom shouldn’t come at the expense of others’ rights and interests. Others contend that third-party effects are relevant to the least restrictive means analysis—the government might be able to protect third parties through alternative means that don’t burden religious exercise. This debate continues to shape religious freedom jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving healthcare, employment, and public accommodations.

International Perspectives on Religious Freedom

While this article focuses primarily on U.S. law, religious freedom is recognized as a fundamental human right internationally. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to manifest religion in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.

Different countries approach religious freedom differently, reflecting varying constitutional traditions, religious demographics, and historical experiences. Some countries have established churches while protecting religious minorities. Others maintain strict separation between religion and state. Still others recognize multiple religions officially or provide various forms of government support to religious organizations.

European courts, for example, often apply a “margin of appreciation” doctrine, giving national governments significant discretion in balancing religious freedom against other interests. This approach recognizes that different societies may legitimately reach different conclusions about how to accommodate religious diversity while maintaining social cohesion and protecting other rights.

International human rights law recognizes that religious freedom is not absolute. Governments may limit religious freedom to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. However, any limitations must be prescribed by law, necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and proportionate to that aim.

Practical Considerations for Religious Freedom Claims

Documenting Religious Beliefs and Practices

Individuals and organizations asserting religious freedom claims should be prepared to explain their religious beliefs and how the challenged law or policy burdens their religious exercise. While courts generally defer to sincere assertions of religious belief, providing context about religious traditions, scriptural foundations, and the importance of particular practices can strengthen a claim.

Documentation might include religious texts, statements from religious leaders, evidence of longstanding religious practices, and explanations of how the challenged requirement conflicts with religious obligations. However, claimants need not prove that their beliefs are mandated by religious doctrine or shared by all members of their faith tradition—sincerely held religious beliefs receive protection even if they’re not universally accepted within a religious community.

Exhausting Administrative Remedies

Before filing a lawsuit, individuals often must exhaust available administrative remedies. This might include requesting religious accommodations through an employer’s human resources department, appealing adverse decisions through administrative channels, or filing complaints with relevant government agencies. Exhausting administrative remedies serves several purposes: it gives the government or institution an opportunity to resolve the dispute without litigation, creates a record of the dispute, and may be legally required before a court will hear the case.

Religious freedom claims can be brought under various legal frameworks, including the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, RFRA, RLUIPA, and state constitutional and statutory provisions. Each framework has different requirements, standards of review, and potential remedies. Strategic decisions about which claims to bring can significantly affect the outcome of a case.

RFRA often provides stronger protection than the Free Exercise Clause alone because it applies strict scrutiny to all substantial burdens on religious exercise, not just those imposed by laws that aren’t neutral and generally applicable. However, RFRA applies only to federal government actions, so state RFRA statutes or state constitutional claims may be necessary to challenge state and local government actions.

The Future of Religious Freedom Jurisprudence

The Roberts Court’s conservative majority seems to have a somewhat insatiable appetite for religion cases, particularly those involving the Free Exercise clause, and some scholars believe the majority has elevated that clause above the Establishment clause by showing little concern for government entanglement with religion. This trend suggests continued evolution in religious freedom doctrine.

Several areas are likely to generate future litigation and doctrinal development. The scope of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws remains contested, particularly regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. The boundaries of government funding for religious organizations continue to shift, with recent cases suggesting broader permission for religious organizations to receive government funds on equal terms with secular organizations.

The application of religious freedom principles in new contexts—such as social media regulation, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies—will require courts to adapt existing frameworks to novel situations. Additionally, increasing religious diversity in the United States may present new challenges as courts encounter religious practices and beliefs from traditions that have been less frequently represented in religious freedom litigation.

Regulations issued by federal agencies, much more than laws passed by Congress, have threatened religious liberty in recent years, and if federal agencies’ authority to interpret the law is significantly limited, religious freedom problems created by federal regulation will likely diminish. Recent administrative law developments may therefore have significant implications for religious freedom.

Resources for Understanding Religious Freedom Law

Numerous organizations and resources provide information about religious freedom law and litigation. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty litigates religious freedom cases and provides educational resources. The Freedom Forum offers information about First Amendment rights, including religious freedom. The SCOTUSblog provides comprehensive coverage of Supreme Court cases, including religious freedom decisions.

Academic institutions and think tanks across the ideological spectrum analyze religious freedom issues from various perspectives. Law school clinics and legal aid organizations may provide representation or advice to individuals facing religious freedom issues. Bar associations often have sections devoted to religious freedom or civil rights that offer resources and networking opportunities for attorneys practicing in this area.

Conclusion

Religious freedom cases present some of the most challenging questions in constitutional law, requiring courts to balance fundamental rights, competing interests, and diverse values. The legal framework for analyzing these cases has evolved significantly over time and continues to develop as courts address new contexts and controversies.

Understanding how courts handle religious freedom cases requires familiarity with multiple constitutional provisions, statutory protections, and standards of review. The interplay between the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, RFRA, RLUIPA, and state law creates a complex but comprehensive framework for protecting religious liberty while respecting other important interests.

As society continues to grapple with questions about the proper role of religion in public life, the relationship between religious freedom and other rights, and the accommodation of increasing religious diversity, courts will continue to play a crucial role in defining the scope and limits of religious freedom. The principles and frameworks discussed in this article provide a foundation for understanding these ongoing debates and the legal standards that shape them.

Whether you’re a student, legal professional, religious leader, or concerned citizen, understanding how courts handle religious freedom cases is essential for participating in these important conversations and protecting fundamental rights in a pluralistic democracy. The careful balancing of religious freedom with other societal interests reflects our commitment to both protecting individual conscience and maintaining a diverse, inclusive society where people of all faiths—and no faith—can flourish.