Ohio
How Employment Division v. Smith applies in Ohio: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law (First Amendment – Free Exercise).
Ohio courts generally adhere to the principles established in Employment Division v. Smith, emphasizing that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, Ohio has also recognized the importance of accommodating religious practices in specific instances.
In Ohio, laws that incidentally burden religious exercise are permissible if they are neutral and generally applicable, absent compelling governmental interests infringing on religious practices.
The court held that a state law prohibiting religious discrimination does not constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause as it is a neutral law of general applicability.
The court found that denying a minor access to a faith-based treatment center violated the Free Exercise rights of both the minor and the parents without a compelling state interest.
The court held that a defendant's religious beliefs did not absolve him of responsibility for violating a generally applicable security law.
Ohio's approach is consistent with the federal standard set by Employment Division v. Smith, focusing on the neutrality and general applicability of laws. However, Ohio courts have shown a willingness to carve out exceptions for religious practices under certain circumstances, reflecting a more flexible application than the rigid federal interpretation.
Ohio bar exam may include questions that test knowledge of Free Exercise principles, especially in relation to state-specific interpretations and cases.