Michalyn Steele (BYU Law School) discusses Bowen v. Roy (1986) and other SCOTUS decisions regarding Native American spirituality. While she initially accepted the “neutral and uniformly applicable” rationale behind the 1986 case, Steele now questions the Court’s adherence to First Amendment values in this line of cases.
In its landmark 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not requirereligious exemptions to neutral and generally applicable laws, even if those lawsincidentally burden religious practice. Over the years, Smith has been criticized for its insensitivity and harm to religious needs and rights, particularly those of religious minorities. Frank S. Ravitch (Michigan State University College of Law) explains why he no longer supports the overturning of Smith.
The Klamath River, which is of great historical and spiritual significance for the Yurok Tribe, flows through Oregon and Northern California (Photo: Istock).
This series provides comparative interdisciplinary analysis of indigenous spirituality and the legal challenges involved in its protection on national and international levels. Drawing on a variety of cases from the Americas, South Africa, and Australia, contributors discuss specificities of indigenous spirituality and theology, power dynamics behind the discussion of indigenous rights, the sacredness of natural objects for indigenous groups, the insufficiency of protections for indigenous believers within existing religious-freedom frameworks, and legal steps needed to strengthen these protections. This series is based on presentations given at the ICLRS 32nd Annual International Law and Religion Symposium,6–7 October 2025.