Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Facts
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye was a religious organization that practiced the Santería faith, a religion originating in the Caribbean that incorporates elements of African spiritual traditions and Catholicism. A central component of Santería rituals involves the ceremonial sacrifice of animals.
When the Church announced plans to establish a house of worship in Hialeah, Florida, city officials and community members expressed strong opposition to the practice of animal sacrifice. In response, the city council enacted a series of ordinances that effectively prohibited animal sacrifice within city limits.
The ordinances were drafted in a way that did not explicitly mention Santería but defined prohibited conduct in terms that closely tracked the Church’s religious practices. For example, they banned the unnecessary killing of animals for ritual purposes while allowing other forms of animal killing, such as hunting, fishing, pest extermination, and slaughter for food.
The Church filed suit, arguing that the ordinances violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by targeting and suppressing its religious practices.
The lower courts upheld the ordinances, reasoning that the laws were neutral and justified by legitimate governmental interests such as public health and animal welfare. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Issues
Whether laws that are facially neutral but target specific religious practices violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Rule
A law that is not neutral or not generally applicable toward religion must satisfy strict scrutiny—meaning it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Application
The Court began by reaffirming the general rule from Employment Division v. Smith: neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally burden religion are typically valid. However, the Court emphasized that this rule does not apply when laws are either not neutral or not generally applicable.
Examining the Hialeah ordinances, the Court found that they were neither neutral nor generally applicable. Although the laws did not explicitly name the Santería religion, their structure, language, and legislative history made clear that they were specifically designed to suppress the Church’s practices.
The Court pointed to several indicators of lack of neutrality. The ordinances defined prohibited conduct in a way that targeted ritual sacrifice while permitting other forms of animal killing. This selective regulation demonstrated that the city was not concerned with animal welfare in a consistent manner but was instead singling out religious conduct.
The laws also failed the general applicability requirement because they imposed burdens on religious conduct while allowing analogous secular conduct to continue unchecked. For example, killing animals for food or pest control was permitted, even though those activities implicated similar concerns about animal welfare.
Because the ordinances were not neutral or generally applicable, they were subject to strict scrutiny. The city argued that it had compelling interests in protecting public health and preventing animal cruelty. However, the Court found that the ordinances were not narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. The laws were underinclusive (allowing similar harms in non-religious contexts) and overinclusive (prohibiting a broad range of religious conduct).
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the ordinances were motivated by hostility toward a particular religion and could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Holding
No. Laws that target specific religious practices and are not neutral or generally applicable violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Court
This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Hialeah ordinances as unconstitutional.
Exam Notes
- Key post-Smith case limiting neutral law doctrine
- If law is not neutral OR not generally applicable → strict scrutiny applies
- Targeting religion (even indirectly) = unconstitutional
- Look for underinclusiveness and selective exemptions
- Legislative intent (hostility toward religion) is highly relevant
- Frequently tested alongside Employment Division v. Smith
- Good contrast: neutral laws upheld vs. targeted laws struck down
- Animal sacrifice facts make it easy to spot on exams