Key Supreme Court decisions shaping religious exemption law. Understanding these cases helps you know your rights and anticipate how institutions must respond.
Each case links to the full opinion. This is educational context, not legal advice.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
374 U.S. 398
Established the 'compelling interest' test — government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means before burdening religious practice.
Why it matters: Foundation of modern religious freedom law. Created the balancing test used in exemption cases for decades.
Read full opinion →Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
406 U.S. 205
Amish families won the right to remove children from school after 8th grade. Supreme Court held that parental religious rights trumped compulsory education law.
Why it matters: Landmark precedent for parental rights and religious education exemptions. Still widely cited.
Read full opinion →Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
494 U.S. 872
Significantly narrowed religious exemption protections. Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws do not require religious exemptions even if they burden religious practice.
Why it matters: Controversial decision that prompted Congress to pass RFRA in 1993 to restore pre-Smith protections.
Read full opinion →Church of Lukumi v. Hialeah (1993)
508 U.S. 520
City ordinance banning animal sacrifice was struck down as targeting religion. Laws that target specific religious practices face strict scrutiny.
Why it matters: Key limit on Smith — laws targeting religion specifically are still subject to compelling interest test.
Read full opinion →Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006)
546 U.S. 418
Unanimous decision. Religious group won the right to use hoasca tea in ceremonies despite federal drug law. Government could not show compelling interest to override RFRA.
Why it matters: Demonstrated that RFRA has real teeth. Government must do more than cite general interests.
Read full opinion →Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)
573 U.S. 682
Closely held corporations cannot be forced to provide contraceptive coverage that violates owners' religious beliefs. RFRA protections extend to for-profit businesses.
Why it matters: Expanded religious freedom to business owners. Established that government must use least restrictive means.
Read full opinion →Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018)
584 U.S. 617
Baker who declined to make same-sex wedding cake won on narrow grounds — the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward his religious beliefs.
Why it matters: Government bodies cannot treat religious objectors with hostility or disparate treatment.
Read full opinion →Tandon v. Newsom (2021)
593 U.S. ___ (2021)
California's COVID restrictions on home religious gatherings struck down. Government cannot treat comparable secular activities more favorably than religious ones.
Why it matters: Important post-COVID precedent. Government must apply restrictions equally to secular and religious activities.
Read full opinion →Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)
593 U.S. 522
Catholic Social Services won the right to continue foster care ministry despite city's anti-discrimination policy. City's contract included discretionary exemptions, making it not generally applicable.
Why it matters: Cities/states that build in exemption discretion must also accommodate religious exemptions.
Read full opinion →303 Creative v. Elenis (2023)
600 U.S. 570
Web designer cannot be forced by state anti-discrimination law to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages. Compelled speech violates First Amendment.
Why it matters: Strong free speech and religious liberty protection for creative professionals.
Read full opinion →Groff v. DeJoy (2023)
600 U.S. 447
Unanimous decision strengthening Title VII workplace religious accommodation. Employers must show substantial increased costs to deny accommodation — not merely more than a de minimis burden.
Why it matters: Major win for employees seeking religious exemptions from work requirements including vaccine mandates.
Read full opinion →Further research: Oyez.org provides audio recordings of oral arguments.
Google Scholar indexes full case text and citing cases.
First Amendment text and
RFRA full text are the statutory foundations for most of these cases.