New Hampshire
How Employment Division v. Smith applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law (First Amendment – Free Exercise).
New Hampshire's approach to free exercise cases generally aligns with the principles set forth in Employment Division v. Smith. The state applies the compelling interest test but permits less stringent scrutiny of laws that incidentally burden religious practices as long as they are generally applicable.
In New Hampshire, the rule is that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, provided they serve a legitimate governmental interest and do not target religious practices specifically.
The court held that a generally applicable drug testing statute did not violate the free exercise rights of a religious organization as it applied uniformly and served a compelling state interest.
The court found that zoning laws restricting certain religious activities were constitutional as they applied equally to all organizations regardless of their religious nature.
The court upheld restrictions on animal sacrifices, ruling that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police powers and did not specifically target religious practices.
New Hampshire's approach mirrors the federal standard set in Employment Division v. Smith, emphasizing the need for a compelling state interest in cases where laws may infringe upon religious practices. However, New Hampshire may allow for slightly broader interpretations of the state constitution that could afford greater protection to religious exercise.
Questions related to the free exercise of religion and the principles from Employment Division v. Smith may appear on the New Hampshire bar exam, particularly focusing on the balancing of religious rights with state interests.