Plain-English summary
Court will decide how to prove a law is not generally applicable and how Carson v. Makin fits with Smith
The Court agreed to decide two questions about religious free-exercise law: (1) what a challenger must show to prove a law is not generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith, and (2) whether Carson v. Makin limits Smith only when the government expressly excludes religious people. The petition comes from a Colorado parish challenging state rules applied to childcare providers.
Why this matters
The decision will shape when religious plaintiffs can force courts to apply strict scrutiny to government rules. If the Court lowers the standard for showing lack of general applicability, many government programs and regulations could be more often judged under strict scrutiny whenever they treat religion differently in practice. That could affect laws and policies across areas like licensing, benefit programs, funding, and regulatory enforcement.
Who may feel it
- Religious institutions and people seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws
- State and local governments that regulate licensing, benefits, and programs
- Childcare providers and other recipients of public programs or licenses
- Civil-rights and religious-liberty advocacy groups
Key questions
- Does proving a law is not generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith require showing either unfettered official discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct?