Encyclopedia > Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye came up after Employment Division v. Smith. In Employment Division the Supreme Court held that the government does not need to demonstrate a compelling interest when it enforces a neutral law that burdens a religious person's free exercise. In other words, as long as the government has a rational reason for enacting a law it can enforce it even though it burdens someone's religion.
The Church belonged to a religion that made animal sacrafice a central part of its worship. When it moved into Hialeah the city reacted by enacting a law which forbade the sort of animal slaughter that they engaged in. The law seemed to have a rational purpose and per Employment Division the lower courts upheld the ordinance. The Supreme Court held that because the law was targeted at this religion it is not subject to the rational basis test and the city had violated the Church's rights.
The prospect of a Santeria church in their midst was distressing to many members of the Hialeah community, and the announcement of the plans to open a Santeria church in Hialeah prompted the city council to hold an emergency public session on June 9, 1987.
With regard to the city's interest in ensuring the adequate care of animals, regulation of conditions and treatment, regardless of why an animal is kept, is the logical response to the city's concern, not a prohibition on possession for the purpose of sacrifice.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hialeah, Florida, desires to have qualified societies or corporations organized under the laws of the State of Florida, to be authorized to investigate and prosecute any violation(s) of the ordinance herein after set forth, and for the registration of the agents of said societies.
City of Hialeah No. 91-948 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nov. 4, 1992 June 11, 1993 508 U.S. 520 Syllabus Petitioner church and its congregants practice the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion.
The city's assertions that it is "self-evident" that killing for food is "important," that the eradication of insects and pests is "obviously justified," and that euthanasia of excess animals "makes sense" do not explain why religion alone must bear the burden of the ordinances.
These ordinances are also substantially underinclusive with regard to the city's public health interests in preventing the disposal of animal carcasses in open public places and the consumption of uninspected meat, since neither interest is pursued by respondent with regard to conduct that is not motivated by religious conviction.
Feeds |
Contact