Two Words: Why Frank Ravitch No Longer Supports the Overturning of Employment Division v. Smith

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 require religious exemptions to neutral and generally applicable laws, even if those laws incidentally 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.

(more…)

Continue Reading Two Words: Why Frank Ravitch No Longer Supports the Overturning of Employment Division v. Smith

Religious Freedom and the Courts

James T. Richardson is Emeritus Foundation Professor of Sociology and Judicial Studies, University of Nevada, Reno.

This post is part of a series on the sociology of religious freedom.

A Sociology of Religious Freedom, coauthored by Olga Breskaya, Giuseppe Giordan, and James T. Richardson, offers in part a sociological perspective on the theoretical underpinnings of the role played by the courts, especially in Western societies, in determining the meaning and implementation of religious freedom. It first explicates how and why this crucial role for the courts has evolved in recent decades and then explores specific trends and landmark cases in major judicial systems in the United States and in Western Europe, focusing on the role courts have played in the protection of religious freedom.

(more…)

Continue Reading Religious Freedom and the Courts

Recent Developments in U.S. Free Exercise Jurisprudence for Native American Religion

Michalyn Steele is Marion G. Romney Professor of Law at the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. This post is based on a presentation given at the ICLRS 32nd Annual International Law and Religion Symposium, 6 October 2025.

The post is the part of the Religious Freedom and Indigenous Rights series

Several recent unpublished U.S. federal court opinions have responded to claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause by incarcerated Native American practitioners. The RLUIPA, enacted by Congress in 2000, provides that governments may not impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of persons confined to institutions unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to further that interest. Incarcerated practitioners of Native American religion have been able to get access to sweat lodges and other aspects of Native religious practice and to have certain religious practices accommodated under the law.

(more…)

Continue Reading Recent Developments in U.S. Free Exercise Jurisprudence for Native American Religion