Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. and Ernesto Pichardo v. City of Hialeah
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 4, 1992 Decided June 11, 1993
Full case name	Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. and Ernesto Pichardo v. City of Hialeah
Citations	508 U.S. 520 (more)
Case history
Prior	Church of Lukumi v. City of Hialeah, 936 F.2d 586 (11th Cir. 1991)
Holding
that the laws in question were enacted contrary to free exercise principles and are void
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy (Parts I, III, IV), joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
Majority	Kennedy (II-B), joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas
Majority	Kennedy (Parts II-A-1, II-A-3), joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas
Concurrence	Kennedy (Part II-A-2), joined by Stevens
Concurrence	Scalia (in part and judgement), joined by Rehnquist, Souter
Concurrence	Blackmun (in judgement), joined by O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Free Exercise Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, City of Hialeah Ordinances 87-52, 87-71, 87-72

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held unconstitutional an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption." The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating in the city. Santeria is a religion practiced in the Americas by the descendants of Africans; many of its rituals involve animal sacrifice. The Church filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santeria, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test: rather, it had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional.

External links

• 508 U.S. 520 (FindLaw page)