Thesis Statement: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause has evolved to balance individuals' rights to practice their religion against the government's interest in enforcing laws that may incidentally impact religious practices.
In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to individuals who were fired for using hallucinogenic drugs during a religious ceremony, asserting that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Conversely, in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Court ruled that the city’s ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifices were unconstitutional because they specifically targeted the Santeria religion. Furthermore, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), the Court determined that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from providing certain contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act if it violated their religious beliefs.
These cases illustrate a nuanced approach by the Court, wherein it protects religious practices from discriminatory laws while still allowing for general regulations, reinforcing the idea that the Free Exercise Clause safeguards against both overt and covert governmental infringement on religious liberty.