Washington
How Employment Division v. Smith applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law (First Amendment – Free Exercise).
Washington generally follows the federal standard established in Employment Division v. Smith, which allows for generally applicable laws to limit religious practices if they do not target a specific religion and are not discriminatory in nature. However, Washington courts have been more willing to recognize and protect minority religious practices within its state constitution framework.
In Washington, a neutral law of general applicability that restricts religious practices will be upheld unless it is shown that it targets a specific religious belief or practice.
The Washington Supreme Court held that a florist could not refuse service for a same-sex wedding based on her religious beliefs, affirming the application of the state's anti-discrimination laws.
The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that restricting a non-custodial parent's right to express religious beliefs to their child does not infringe upon their free exercise rights, provided it serves the child's best interest.
The Washington Supreme Court found that a law enforcement officer was justified in enforcing a neutral drug policy against a religious user, noting that laws against drug use constitute a compelling state interest.
Washington's approach tends to offer more robust protections for minority religions compared to the federal standard established in Employment Division v. Smith. While the federal standard allows for limitations on religious practices under general laws, Washington may scrutinize them more closely, particularly when they disproportionately impact a specific religious group.
Understanding how Washington law interprets the free exercise clause, particularly in the context of neutral laws of general applicability, is vital for the Washington bar exam.