Under the rule associated with Employment Division v. Smith, a neutral law of general applicability ordinarily does not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because it incidentally makes a religious practice more difficult. A uniformly enforced safety code, for example, does not become unconstitutional simply because compliance is costly for a congregation. The analysis changes when the text or operation of a rule targets religion, treats comparable secular conduct more favorably, or gives officials broad discretion to grant individualized exceptions while denying a religious request. Such unequal treatment ordinarily triggers demanding review: government must offer a compelling justification and use a narrowly tailored means.

Constitutional and statutory protection must be kept separate. Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to require a compelling-interest test for burdens imposed by the federal government, even in many situations where the constitutional minimum would be less protective. States may have similar statutes or stronger state constitutional guarantees. An exemption can therefore be required by statute even when the federal Free Exercise Clause alone would not require it. Conversely, an accommodation designed to relieve a religious burden is not automatically an establishment of religion; the two religion clauses are read to permit substantial room for evenhanded accommodation.

Consider a city rule allowing case-by-case exemptions from a grooming policy for medical, occupational, and personal reasons while categorically refusing religious requests. Calling the policy "neutral" does not settle the problem. The pattern of exemptions suggests that the city values secular reasons more highly than comparable religious ones. By contrast, a rule that admits no exceptions and applies to all comparable conduct presents the stronger general-applicability case. For exam questions, ask four things: What practice is burdened? Is the rule neutral in text and operation? Are comparable secular activities or exemptions treated better? Does protection come from the Constitution, a statute, or both?

Video lesson: Freedom of Religion: Crash Course Government and Politics #24