508 U.S. 520 (1993)
The case of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah marks a pivotal point in constitutional law, specifically regarding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Does a city ordinance that is not neutral and generally applicable, and that specifically targets religious practices, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
Under the Free Exercise Clause, any law that targets religious behaviors or is not neutral or generally applicable is subject to strict scrutiny. The government must prove that the law is justified by a compelling governmental interest and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The Supreme Court held that the City of Hialeah's ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable and that they were enacted to target the Santeria religious practices. As such, they violated the Free Exercise Clause and failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny standard.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah is significant because it reinforced and clarified the standards by which laws affecting religious practices are evaluated under the Free Exercise Clause. It underscored the importance of neutrality and general applicability and reinforced the application of strict scrutiny to laws targeting specific religions. This case is crucial for law students as it provides a clear illustration of how the Court distinguishes between permissible regulation affecting religious practice and impermissible discrimination against specific religious beliefs.