Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. V. Hialeah Case Study

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Supreme Court continually adjusts its interpretation of the framer’s words, using purposefully vague definitions of religion and religiosity as the basis for their rulings on the application of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. Each court employs their own understanding of religion to every case, rendering constitutional judgments that are often more based on an individual Justice’s interpretation of what can be considered religious than on a strict adherence to judicial precedent or the application of constitutional

v. Hialeah the court exhibits a deeper understanding of the integral role practice plays to a religious experience. In 1989, the city of Hialeah created a series of ordinances prohibiting the unnecessary slaughter of animals. The ordinances made exemptions for “necessary” killings, such as hunting and kosher slaughter, but maintained that the Santeria religion’s practice of animal sacrifice was animal cruelty and a danger to the “public health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community” (Kennedy 528). Rather than prohibiting belief, the ordinances barred the Santeria worshippers from ritual practice. Although in Smith the court devalued practice’s centrality to an individuals religious experience, in the this case, the courts decision to reverse the District Court’s ruling defended the practitioner’s right. The court found that Hialeah’s ordinances “have every appearance of a prohibition that society is prepared to impose upon [Santeria worshippers] but not upon itself.” (545). Compared to the Smith case, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, saw Hialeah’s ordinances as unfairly targeting the practitioners of Santeria, rather than serving as a neutral and generally applicable law. By viewing the ordinance from this perspective, the Supreme Court cements its position as a defender of the rights of minority religious groups through its ruling in Church of Lukimi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. Unlike in the Smith case, the court does not use Santeria’s status as a minority religion to argue its practices as unworthy of First Amendment protection. In fact instead, the court states firmly that religious beliefs, and thus the practices required to fulfill them, “need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to other in order to merit First Amendment protection.” (Kennedy 531). This is due, in part, to the Court’s ability to understand the Santeria through a Christian lens. Santeria has