The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a direct assault on the free exercise of religion Friday-but did not obviate the need to adopt the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, now before the Senate.
Both the new decision and the pending bill address government suppression of religious practice. At issue in the case from Hialeah, Fla., were ordinances banning animal sacrifice, the central ritual of the Afro-Cuban faith Santeria.
Because they directly targeted a religious practice, Hialeah’s ordinances must be narrowly drawn to protect a compelling state interest. That test they failed.
The ordinances had an “impermissible object” hiding behind the secular purpose of protecting the public peace, safety and morals. The laws were “gerrymandered to proscribe religious killing and no other”-such as killing for food or sport or extermination of pests or animal euthanasia. The city council passed the ordinances at an emergency session called in response to a Santeria congregation’s leasing land and announcing plans for a house of worship.
Persecuted in Cuba, the 50,000 followers of Santeria in south Florida still tend to practice their rituals in secret. Odd as their beliefs may seem to others, the 1st Amendment embraces them; their sacrifice of chickens, ducks, goats and sheep (most of which they cook and eat) must be allowed.
Unless, that is, the state were to ban all killing of animals. In that case, the religion must give way, under a disturbing three-year-old Supreme Court doctrine. This Smith rule was established in a case from Oregon, occasioned by a state ban on hallucinogens, which incidentally barred Indians’ ritual smoking of peyote. Under the Smith test, a Rhode Island coroner can perform an autopsy over the religious objections of a dead child’s parents; Will County, Ill., can forbid the wearing of hats in its courthouse despite the affront to Orthodox Jews.
In our view, even laws of general applicability should provide for religious exemptions except when a compelling state interest is overriding. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act will require just that. The Senate should follow the House’s example and unanimously pass it.
