Indiana
How Employment Division v. Smith applies in Indiana: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law (First Amendment – Free Exercise).
Indiana generally follows the principles established in Employment Division v. Smith, maintaining that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, there is a growing trend toward adopting a more protective stance regarding religious freedoms at both state and local levels.
In Indiana, laws that are neutral and generally applicable may be enforced even if they incidentally burden religious practices, aligning with the Smith decision but allowing for specific exceptions where statutory protections for religious exercise exist.
The Indiana Supreme Court held that while the state can impose neutral laws, exceptions may be recognized where statutory provisions explicitly protect free exercise rights.
The court determined that the city's decision to restrict religious gatherings during emergency orders required careful scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
The ruling supported the view that families engaging in private home education have First Amendment protections that may be violated by overly broad regulations.
While Indiana adheres to the federal standard established in Employment Division v. Smith, some Indiana courts have exhibited a willingness to expand protections for religious practices through state legislation. This suggests a potential divergence from the federal approach when local statutes provide additional protections for free exercise.
Candidates should be familiar with Indiana's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, particularly how it may apply to regulations affecting religious practices in various contexts.