Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. and Ernesto Pichardo v. City of Hialeah | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Argued November 4, 1992 Decided June 11, 1993 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| that the laws in question were enacted contrary to free exercise principles and are void | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas |
|||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||
| Majority by: Kennedy (Parts I, III, IV) Joined by: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas Majority by: Kennedy (II-B) Joined by: Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas Majority by: Kennedy (Parts II-A-1, II-A-3) Joined by: Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas Concurrence by: Kennedy (Part II-A-2) Joined by: Stevens Concurrence by: Scalia (in part and judgement) Joined by: Rehnquist, Souter Concurrence by: Blackmun (in judgement) Joined by: O'Connor |
|||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||
| U.S. Const. Free Exercise Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, City of Hialeah Ordinances 87-52, 87-71, 87-72 | |||||||||||
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held unconstitutional an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption." The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating in the city. Santeria is a religion practiced in the Americas by the descendants of Africans; many of its rituals involve animal sacrifice. The Church filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.
Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santeria, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test: rather, it had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional.
- ^ 508 U.S. 520 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.