Question

The Court has consistently held that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right. However, as with the Establishment Clause, the Court has not given a definitive answer as to what should be protected religious practices, and what should not be protected. In Cantwell the Court grounded its decision in a standard of government neutrality, but this standard did not remain good law for long. Instead, the Court changed its standard to one that restricts the state's ability to interfere with the right to free exercise of religion. Explain this standard, as well as how the Court applied it for several decades. From there, discuss the downfall of this standard, and what replaced it during the Rehnquist era. In short, discuss the evolution of the different standards used by the Court, from Cantwell through Smith. Finally, make an argument for where you believe Free Exercise doctrine is headed in light of the most recent cases we have read in this area, and considering the makeup of the current Court.

Answer

*A. Varies