Free Exercise Clause Case Study

1. State of the Law:

Under the Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make any laws prohibiting anyone from religious freedoms. The city council of Hialeah, Florida held a public hearing passed several ordinances that prevented religious animal sacrifice including 87-40 condemning animal cruelty , 87-52 prohibiting possession of animals which are intended for sacrifice or slaughter , 87-71 which prohibited animal sacrifice , and 87-72 which prevented the slaughter of animals in areas not zoned. The local laws prohibited Santeria sacrifices but the laws did contain exceptions for animal killings under acceptable and hygienic circumstances and for other religion-related purposes, which included kosher slaughter.

There was one

People are not as scared to seek out priest. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment and its history Kennedy believed and held “that Congress’s power is solely “remedial” and “preventive.” He meant Congress had absolutely no right to interpret or define what constitutes the constitutional rights or religions or to expand the scope based on courts observation. Kennedy said “Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been given the power to enforce, not the power to determine what constitutes and constitutional violation.” Most of the people who practice Santeria are hardworking American citizens who have just held on to their ancestral roots and traditions. But there is also a disconnect. The original church has been closed and member scattered. There is not the same connection there was years prior to this

In particular, resolution of the question of whether facial neutrality will be dispositive under Smith will be of considerable significance. More importantly, though, Hialeah will now call on the Court to decide whether disadvantaging minority religious practices, like Santeria, is, in fact, an "unavoidable consequence" of democratic government. Hialeah, in other words, involves nothing short of the fate of free exercise” . The case advanced the development of the First Amendment, Free Clause. City Attorneys when addressing this case to the city council clearly stated “we cannot stop them from opening a church a church. Their religious beliefs are guaranteed by the First Amendment.” This allowed for other cases of animal sacrifice which included in the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless. “The court ruled that the Merced case of the freedom of exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating to the use of animals. Even though people didn’t want it, it forced courts to take a closer look at and set the precedent for cases after