![handle is hein.crs/govedst0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional
*Research Service
Fulton v. Philadelphia: Religious Exemptions
from Generally Applicable Laws
June 22, 2021
The Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia on June 17,
2021. In Fulton, a Catholic foster care agency raised religious objections to complying with
Philadelphia's policies prohibiting contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the agency's claims, citing a 1990 case called
Employment Division v. Smith. Under Smith, a foundational case interpreting the First Amendment's Free
Exercise Clause, religious entities are usually not entitled to constitutional exemptions from neutral,
generally applicable laws. On appeal, the agency asked the Supreme Court to overrule Smith. In a
unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court ruled for the agency, but a majority of the Court declined to
overrule Smith. This Legal Sidebar discusses the Court's decision in this case, including the majority and
concurring opinions, and discusses the implications of the decision for Congress.
Legal Background: Employment Division v. Smith
The First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause provides that the government shall make no law ...
prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court has said that the government generally may
not target[] religious beliefs as such. If a law restricts religious practices because of their religious
motivation or discriminates based on religious status, it will be subject to strict scrutiny, meaning the law
is invalid unless the government can show that it is justified by a compelling interest and is narrowly
tailored to advance that interest.
In Employment Division v. Smith, however, the Supreme Court held that a law does not violate the First
Amendment if the burden on religious exercise does not result from hostility to religion, but is merely
the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision. Justice Scalia, writing for
the five-Justice majority in Smith, rejected a free exercise claim brought by two members of a Native
American church. The state had denied them unemployment benefits after they were fired for using
peyote in violation of state criminal drug laws. The church members argued that this denial of benefits
impermissibly burdened their religious practice, given that the peyote was used for sacramental purposes.
The Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating that the right of free exercise does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a 'valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground
that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).'
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10612
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govedst0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most