If state action imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise, the burden is unlawful unless “it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
The assertion of some broad “compelling” governmental interest is not enough. The state must show that granting a religious exemption to the particular person claiming religious liberty is necessary to further a compelling interest. Rarely. If ever, will that be the case. Even if the state passes that test, it must also show that it is the least restrictive means of furthering that particularized compelling interest.
The state must pass through what I call a gauntlet of superlatives under this test. It will rarely be able to do so—overriding importance and least restrictive means!
No comments:
Post a Comment