Case Title: Humphrey v. Lane

Citation: 2000-Ohio-435

Docket Number: 19990206

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Humphrey v. Lane, 89 Ohio St.3d 62, 2000-Ohio-435.] 
 
 
 
 
 
HUMPHREY, APPELLANT, v. LANE ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Humphrey v. Lane (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 62.] 
Civil rights — Standard under Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution for 
reviewing a generally applicable religion-neutral state regulation that 
allegedly violates a person’s right to free exercise of religion — Hair 
length of Native American corrections officer — Least restrictive means of 
furthering state’s compelling interest not shown. 
Under Section 7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, the standard for reviewing a 
generally applicable, religion-neutral state regulation that allegedly violates 
a person’s right to free exercise of religion is whether the regulation serves a 
compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that 
interest. 
(No. 99-206 — Submitted October 13, 1999 at the Pickaway County Session 
— Decided May 24, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hocking County, No. 98-CA-004. 
 
This case involves a clash between appellant Wendall Humphrey’s sincerely 
held religious beliefs, which include a belief in maintaining long hair, and the 
grooming policy of his employer, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 
Correction (“ODRC”).  This conflict commenced when appellee Janis Lane, 
 
 
2
Warden of the Hocking Correctional Facility, notified Humphrey that he would be 
terminated from his position as a corrections officer because he refused to cut his 
hair to collar length, as required by the ODRC grooming policy. 
 
Humphrey is a Native American and wears his hair long as a part of his 
practice of Native American Spirituality.  Humphrey was born on a reservation but 
was adopted by a Christian family and raised as a Christian.  After he became an 
adult, Humphrey’s adopted parents told him that he had parents and siblings living 
on an Indian reservation.  Humphrey came to embrace his Native American 
heritage, enrolling as a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and studying 
Native American beliefs and practices.  Humphrey has practiced the religious 
customs of Native American Spirituality since 1990. 
 
As part of his religious practice, Humphrey began growing his hair long in 
1990.  Humphrey believes that as a part of walking the “red road,” the sacred 
Native American path of spirituality, he must keep his hair long.  Humphrey 
believes that a man’s hair is a part of his spiritual essence and should be cut only 
on certain occasions, such as when he is in mourning. 
 
Humphrey has been employed at Hocking Correctional Facility (“Hocking”) 
since 1988.  ODRC first issued the grooming policy relevant in this case in 1992.  
The relevant portion, virtually unchanged since then, now reads: 
 
“IV. Policy: 
 
 
3
 
“It is the policy of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that 
employees of the Department present a professional and dignified image, 
commensurate with their responsibilities, in order to instill confidence on the part 
of the public and establish respect from those under the supervision of the 
department. 
 
“V. Procedures: 
 
“A. Uniformed Personnel 
 
“ * * * 
 
“2. Hairstyle shall not interfere with the wearing or proper positioning of the 
uniform cap.  Hair shall be styled above the eyebrow in the front.  Certain hairstyles 
may be considered incompatible with a professional and dignified appearance. 
 
“a. Male employees’ hair shall be evenly cut and neatly groomed.  Hair must 
be cut in such a style that it does not cover the entire ears on the side and is collar 
length or shorter in the back. 
 
“ * * * 
 
“c. Female employees [sic] hair may not be worn below the shoulders and 
must be off the collar when wearing the uniform cap.  Female employees with hair 
longer than shoulder length may pull it back, pin it up, etc., to achieve this.” 
 
ODRC does not contend that the grooming policy is necessary as a safety or 
security measure.  As the policy itself states, it exists so that employees will project 
 
 
4
“a professional and dignified image, * * * in order to instill confidence on the part 
of the public and establish respect from the inmates.”  ODRC Director Reginald 
Wilkinson testified regarding the importance of the policy: 
 
“[The grooming policy] is essential to the esprit de corps, image, discipline 
and security at these institutions.  The purpose of the policy is to create a unified 
appearance among uniformed personnel, which personnel directly supervis[e] and 
interac[t] with the inmate population.  A uniform, professional image is essential to 
projecting an image of monolithic, indivisible authority to inmates from the 
uniformed prison staff.” 
 
Despite the goal of indivisible authority, the grooming policy differs for 
uniformed personnel, nonuniformed personnel, and noninstitutional personnel, and 
for men and women.  Only male uniformed employees are required to cut their hair 
“in such a style that it * * * is collar length or shorter in the back.” 
 
Humphrey was opposed to the grooming policy from the outset in 1992.  
When informed that he would have to cut his hair in order to remain at the 
Hocking Correctional Facility, he filed a charge of discrimination with the Ohio 
Civil Rights Commission in June 1992.  In resolution of that charge, Humphrey 
agreed to wear his hair underneath his uniform cap while on duty.  He has 
continued to wear his hair in that manner while on duty. 
 
 
5
 
There is no evidence that Humphrey’s hairstyle has interfered with his 
ability to properly perform his job as a corrections officer.  There is no evidence 
that the inmates disrespected Humphrey or that his hair adversely affected esprit de 
corps.  At no time has a prison official told Humphrey that his hair length is a 
source of disruption for coworkers or inmates at Hocking.  ODRC admits that there 
has never been a problem with Humphrey’s job performance. 
 
On January 14, 1997, Lane issued a memorandum to all staff at Hocking, 
reminding them of the grooming policy and requiring compliance by January 30, 
1997.  Lane sent the memorandum on the heels of a finding by the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that the ODRC policy did not 
violate the religious freedom of the particular plaintiff in Blanken v. Ohio Dept. of 
Rehab. & Corr. (1996), 944 F.Supp. 1359.  That case was decided in large part 
because the plaintiff’s hairstyle was so extreme that it could not be hidden under a 
uniform cap.  Lane wrote in the memorandum that the court “determined that 
ODRC’s interest in maintaining security and discipline in the institution is a 
compelling interest which justifies requirements to maintain hair lengths.” 
 
Humphrey did not cut his hair, and thus became subject to the disciplinary 
process, including oral and written reprimands.  He was scheduled for a 
predisciplinary conference, the notice for which advised Humphrey that he was 
subject to further disciplinary action, including termination of employment.  The 
 
 
6
conference was scheduled for March 14, 1997, but was never held because 
Humphrey was on medical leave at the time. 
 
On May 28, 1997, Humphrey filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and 
injunctive relief and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Hocking County 
Court of Common Pleas.  After a June 6, 1997 hearing, the trial court granted 
Humphrey’s motion for preliminary injunction on June 11, 1997.  A trial on the 
merits was held on August 28, 1997.  On February 6, 1998, the trial court granted 
judgment in Humphrey’s favor. 
 
In arriving at its decision, the trial court employed the constitutional analysis 
set forth by this court in In re Milton (1987), 29 Ohio St.3d 20, 29 OBR 373, 505 
N.E.2d 255, and State v. Whisner (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 181, 1 O.O.3d 105, 351 
N.E.2d 750.  Under those decisions, the state cannot infringe on a sincerely held 
religious belief unless it shows a compelling state interest and also shows that the 
interest was furthered by the least restrictive means available.  The court made 
factual determinations that Humphrey’s religious beliefs were sincerely held and 
that the aims of the grooming policy could be achieved by Humphrey simply 
tucking his hair beneath his uniform cap.  The trial court found that the ODRC did 
not employ the least restrictive means to further the compelling state interest at 
issue. 
 
 
7
 
The court of appeals reversed the trial court.  The appellate court held that 
the trial court had applied the wrong constitutional standard to the policy at issue.  
The court of appeals stated that the ODRC did not need to show a compelling state 
interest.  Instead, the court found the standard enunciated by the United States 
Supreme Court in Oregon Dept. of Human Resources, Emp. Div. v. Smith (1990), 
494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876, to be applicable.  In Smith, the 
court held that generally applicable, religion-neutral laws that have an incidental 
effect of burdening religious practice need not be justified by a compelling state 
interest.  Applying the Smith standard, the court of appeals found that the grooming 
policy was generally applicable and religion-neutral, and thus did not violate the 
United States and Ohio Constitutions. 
 
Further, the appellate court held that even if the compelling-state-interest test 
applied, the ODRC’s compelling state interest outweighed the burden placed upon 
Humphrey’s religious practices and that the grooming policy was the least 
restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon the allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Kathleen M. Trafford and Constance M. 
Greaney, for appellant. 
 
 
8
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Mary Beth Foley, Assistant 
Attorney General, Edward B. Foley, pro hac vice, State Solicitor, and David M. 
Gormley, Associate Solicitor, for appellees. 
 
Carrie M. Cassady and Linda K. Fiely, urging reversal for amicus curiae, 
Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11, AFL-CIO. 
 
Kevin J. Hasson, Eric W. Treene and Roman P. Storzer, pro hac vice, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J.  We hold that under Section 7, Article I of the Ohio 
Constitution, the standard for reviewing a generally applicable, religion-neutral 
state regulation that allegedly violates a person’s right to free exercise of religion is 
whether the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive 
means of furthering that interest.  We further hold that the grooming policy in this 
case, while in furtherance of a compelling state interest, did not employ the least 
restrictive means of furthering that interest. 
 
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: 
 
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the 
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the 
Government for a redress of grievances.” 
 
 
9
 
The Ohio Constitution contains a section devoted entirely to the freedom of 
religion, which it describes in detail: 
 
“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God 
according to the dictates of their own conscience.  No person shall be compelled to 
attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any place of worship, 
against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious 
society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted.  No 
religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be 
incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein 
shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations.  Religion, morality, and 
knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of 
the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination 
in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage 
schools and the means of instruction.” Section 7, Article I. 
 
Verbiage does not indicate commitment to an ideal.  The one phrase in the 
United States Constitution regarding the freedom of religion is one of the most 
powerful statements in human history.  Ohio’s more detailed description of the 
right does not by itself prove that Ohio’s framers created a broader freedom of 
religion than exists in the United States Constitution.  However, the words of the 
Ohio framers do indicate their intent to make an independent statement on the 
 
 
10
meaning and extent of the freedom.  Whether that statement creates a relevant 
difference is the question we face today. 
 
In employing our comparison we are not doing a mere word count, but 
instead are looking for a qualitative difference.  The Ohio Constitution does have 
an eleven-word phrase that distinguishes itself from the United States Constitution: 
“nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted.”  The United 
States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free 
exercise [of religion].”  We find the phrase that brooks no “interference with the 
rights of conscience” to be broader than that which proscribes any law prohibiting 
free exercise of religion.  The Ohio Constitution allows no law that even interferes 
with the rights of conscience.  The federal Constitution concerns itself with laws 
that prohibit the free exercise of religion.  By its nature the federal Constitution 
seems to target laws that specifically address the exercise of religion, i.e., not those 
laws that tangentially affect religion.  Ohio’s ban on any interference makes even 
those tangential effects potentially unconstitutional. 
 
The United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal Constitution 
makes it clear that “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the 
obligation to comply with a ‘valid and neutral law of general applicability on the 
ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes 
(or proscribes).’ ” Smith, 494 U.S. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600, 108 L.Ed.2d at 886, 
 
 
11
quoting United States v. Lee (1982), 455 U.S. 252, 263, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 1058, 71 
L.Ed.2d 127, 136, fn. 3 (Stevens, J., concurring).  Under the standard enunciated by 
the court in Smith, the relevant issues are whether the regulation at issue is 
religion-neutral and whether it is generally applicable.  If those elements are 
fulfilled, then the regulation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. 
 
It was the Smith decision that marked the divergence of federal and Ohio 
protection of religious freedom.  Not until Smith did the difference in the 
constitutional clauses become relevant.  This court has traditionally mirrored 
federal jurisprudence as to protection of religious freedom.  In State v. Whisner 
(1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 181, 217-218, 1 O.O.3d 105, 124-125, 351 N.E.2d 750, 771, 
this court followed federal jurisprudence in enunciating a compelling-state-interest 
test in Ohio.  Citing Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), 406 U.S. 205, 233, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 
1542, 32 L.Ed.2d 15, 35, this court held: 
 
“What is required is a finding ‘that there is a state interest of sufficient 
magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise 
Clause.’ Id., at page 214 [92 S.Ct. at 1532, 32 L.Ed.2d at 24].  Moreover, even if 
the state can establish the requisite degree of interest, it must yet demonstrate that 
such interests cannot otherwise be served in order to overbalance legitimate claims 
to the free exercise of religion.” (Footnote omitted.) 
 
 
12
 
The Smith decision made it clear that earlier federal jurisprudence on free 
exercise claims should not be relied upon when contemplating religion-neutral, 
generally applicable laws.  However, we have made it clear that this court is not 
bound by federal court interpretations of the federal Constitution in interpreting our 
own Constitution.  As this court held in Arnold v. Cleveland (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 
35, 616 N.E.2d 163, paragraph one of the syllabus: 
 
“The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force.  In the areas of 
individual rights and civil liberties, the United States Constitution, where 
applicable to the states, provides a floor below which state court decisions may not 
fall.  As long as state courts provide at least as much protection as the United States 
Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state 
courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to 
individuals and groups.” 
 
We have considered the difference between the Ohio and federal 
Constitutions in regard to the Establishment Clause.  As this court has previously 
stated, “[t]here is no reason to conclude that the Religion Clauses of the Ohio 
Constitution are coextensive with those in the United States Constitution, though 
they have at times been discussed in tandem. * * *  The language in the Ohio 
provisions is quite different from the federal language. * * * We reserve the right 
to adopt a different constitutional standard pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, 
 
 
13
whether because the federal constitutional standard changes or for any other 
relevant reason.”  Simmons-Harris v. Goff (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1, 10, 711 N.E.2d 
203, 211-212. 
 
As stated above, the Ohio Constitution’s free exercise protection is broader, 
and we therefore vary from the federal test for religiously neutral, evenly applied 
government actions.  We apply a different standard to a different constitutional 
protection.  We adhere to the standard long held in Ohio regarding free exercise 
claims—that the state enactment must serve a compelling state interest and must be 
the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.  That protection applies to 
direct and indirect encroachments upon religious freedom. 
 
Before we analyze the state action in any case, we must first look at the 
beliefs of the person affected by the state action, and how those beliefs are affected 
by the state action.  To state a prima facie free exercise claim, the plaintiff must 
show that his religious beliefs are truly held and that the governmental enactment 
has a coercive affect against him in the practice of his religion. Whisner, 47 Ohio 
St.2d at 200, 1 O.O.3d at 115-116, 351 N.E.2d at 762.  There seems to be no 
dispute that Humphrey has successfully made those showings in this case.  The trial 
court made express factual findings that Humphrey’s religious beliefs are sincerely 
held.  The state does not dispute that a central tenet of Native American Spirituality 
 
 
14
is that a man’s hair should not be cut unless he is in mourning.  Forcing Humphrey 
to cut his hair would certainly infringe upon the free exercise of his religion. 
 
Since Humphrey has made his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the state 
to prove that the regulation furthers a compelling state interest.  Once that aspect 
has been satisfied, the state must prove that its regulation is the least restrictive 
means available of furthering that state interest. 
 
We are satisfied that the state does have a compelling interest in establishing 
a uniform and grooming policy for its guards.  Maintenance of a prison system is a 
central role of government, an area it is uniquely suited for.  It is an undertaking 
essential to justice and to the safety of the citizenry, but by its nature is fraught 
with danger and thus must be tightly controlled.  A prison is a dangerous, 
potentially explosive environment. 
 
ODRC Director Reginald Wilkinson testified that a grooming policy “is 
essential to the esprit de corps, image, discipline and security at these institutions.  
The purpose of the policy is to create a unified appearance among uniformed 
personnel, which personnel directly supervis[e] and interac[t] with the inmate 
population.  A uniform, professional image is essential to projecting an image of 
monolithic, indivisible authority to inmates from the uniformed prison staff.” 
 
The appearance of an organized, disciplined front could aid in squelching 
thoughts of organized unrest by prisoners.  Prisons by their nature are filled with 
 
 
15
people who have rejected the structure of civilized society, and a heightened sense 
of order is necessary to maintain stability.  Also, courts have provided prison 
administrators “wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies 
and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and 
discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 
520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1878, 60 L.Ed.2d 447, 474. 
 
The state has sufficiently established that there is a compelling state interest 
in establishing uniform and grooming policies for prison workers.  The state must 
further prove, however, that the policy is the least restrictive means of furthering 
that interest. 
 
The ODRC states the purpose of the policy within the policy language: “It is 
the policy of the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction that the employees 
of the Department present a professional and dignified image, commensurate with 
their responsibilities, in order to instill confidence on the part of the public and 
establish respect from those under the supervision of the department.”  The 
question is whether the ODRC adopted the least restrictive means of reaching that 
goal. 
 
We view the resolution of that issue to be a factual determination.  The trial 
court found as a factual matter that the simple accommodation of allowing 
Humphrey to wear his hair pinned under his uniform cap was a less restrictive 
 
 
16
means of furthering ODRC’s interest.  The trial court saw Humphrey with his hair 
tucked beneath his cap and found that Humphrey presented the “professional and 
dignified image” required by the policy.  The trial court found that “[i]t is 
impossible to tell that his hair is longer than 1 or 2 inches when worn in this 
fashion.  It does not appear ragged, unkempt or extreme.” 
 
The trial judge also considered testimony concerning whether Humphrey’s 
hair affected the attitudes of fellow guards, administrators, and inmates toward 
him, and viewed with his own eyes whether the accommodation was a practical 
one.  The trial court found that a practical accommodation could be made.  We defer 
to the trial court’s factual finding. 
 
In Blanken v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1996), 944 F.Supp. 1359, the 
federal case that provided ODRC with a judicial imprimatur to enforce its 
grooming policy, the trial judge made a contrary finding regarding the least 
restrictive means test.  In Blanken, the plaintiff also practiced Native American 
Spirituality.  Included in his religious practices was a belief that he should not cut 
the hairs that grew at the base of his neck.  Blanken believed that human hair can 
pick up the messages of spirits in the wind, and stated, “because the hairs at the 
base of the neck are rooted directly to the spinal column, I believe and it is 
believed that these hairs provide a direct link between the spirits in the wind and 
the human brain.” Id. at 1362. 
 
 
17
 
The trial judge in Blanken determination that “plaintiff’s hair creates a very 
unusual appearance.  Plaintiff’s long hair grows from a very conspicuous patch at 
the base of his neck. * * * The long thin ‘tail’ of plaintiff’s hair is likewise 
extraordinary in appearance, and visible, whether or not it is tucked under a cap or 
in plaintiff’s collar.” Id. at 1370. 
 
In Blanken, the judge determined that no accommodation could be made 
because of the extraordinary look of the plaintiff’s hair.  The trial judge here came 
to a different conclusion based upon a different set of facts operative in this case.  
In Blanken, the goal of uniformity of appearance could not be achieved by a simple 
accommodation.  In this case, it can. 
 
We view the two cases not as being at odds, but rather as complementary.  
The ODRC grooming policy should include an accommodation for persons who 
grow their hair long for religious reasons, allowing them to tuck their hair under 
their uniform caps.  ODRC could discipline employees who, even after employing 
that accommodation, could not achieve the uniform “professional and dignified” 
image the policy requires. 
 
According to testimony at the trial, ODRC offered that accommodation 
beginning in 1992.  Employees seeking an exemption to the hair length policy 
signed an affidavit saying they were doing so for religious reasons.  Of the ten 
 
 
18
thousand to twelve thousand employees the ODRC employed in 1992, only sixteen 
sought the exemption. 
 
Therefore, we hold that the ODRC can further its compelling interest of a 
uniform grooming policy through a less restrictive means than the policy it 
currently employs.  We accordingly reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 
and reinstate the trial court’s declaratory judgment and injunction. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Certainly the Ohio Constitution is a document of 
independent force, and it may accord greater civil liberties and protections to our 
citizens than the federal Constitution requires.  Arnold v. Cleveland (1993), 67 
Ohio St.3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163, paragraph one of the syllabus.  But the essential 
question in this case is whether the Ohio Constitution requires courts to subject a 
generally applicable law to the most rigorous judicial scrutiny when a plaintiff 
claims that the law incidentally burdens his or her religious beliefs or practices.  I 
do not join the majority today, because I conclude that our Constitution’s 
independent recognition of “rights of conscience” does not justify rejecting the 
 
 
19
reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in Oregon Dept. of Human 
Resources, Emp. Div. v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 
876. 
 
In Smith, the Supreme Court recognized the general principle that “ 
‘[c]onscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious 
toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the 
promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.  The mere possession of religious 
convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not 
relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.’ ” Smith, supra, 
494 U.S. at 879, 110 S.Ct. at 1600, 108 L.Ed.2d at 885-886, quoting Minersville 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Gobitis (1940), 310 U.S. 586, 594-595, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 
1012-1013, 84 L.Ed. 1375, 1379. 
 
The answer in each case as to whether an individual’s religious beliefs may 
excuse compliance with a generally applicable law depends primarily on the level 
of judicial scrutiny deemed appropriate for review of the constitutional question.  
Today, the majority decides that Ohio courts shall continue to review such 
questions using the most exacting scrutiny in our judicial arsenal—the “compelling 
state interest” standard—and declines to align our jurisprudence with that of the 
federal courts following Smith. 
 
 
20
 
To support its departure from the Supreme Court’s recent free exercise 
jurisprudence, the majority cites the textual differences between Ohio’s 
Constitution and the First Amendment.  And some textual differences certainly 
exist.  But only last year, this court determined that even though the text of Section 
7, Article I of the Ohio Constitution is “quite different” from the First Amendment, 
Ohio’s religion clauses are, nevertheless, the “approximate equivalent” of those 
found in the Bill of Rights.  Simmons-Harris v. Goff (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1, 10, 
711 N.E.2d 203, 211-212.  Accordingly, we adopted the federal Lemon test for 
Establishment Clause claims asserted under the Ohio Constitution because the 
Lemon test is “a logical and reasonable method by which to determine whether a 
statutory scheme establishes religion.”  Id. at 10, 711 N.E.2d at 211.  See Lemon v. 
Kurtzman (1971), 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745.  Ohio’s “Free 
Exercise” Clause should be analyzed according to the Smith thinking for the same 
reason that our Simmons-Harris decision applied Lemon to Ohio’s “Establishment 
Clause.”  Smith reasoned that the application of the compelling-state-interest test to 
all free-exercise claimants is neither logical nor reasonable. 
 
We are accustomed to the application of strict scrutiny in the context of free 
speech and racial discrimination.  When a court strictly scrutinizes racially 
discriminatory laws or content-based restrictions on speech, the rigorous judicial 
review produces equal treatment and an unrestricted flow of ideas. Smith, supra, 
 
 
21
494 U.S. at 885-886, 110 S.Ct. at 1604, 108 L.Ed.2d at 890.  As Justice Scalia 
noted for the majority, both of these results are “constitutional norms.” Id.  On the 
other hand, “what [strict scrutiny] would produce here—a private right to ignore 
generally applicable laws—is a constitutional anomaly.”  Id. at 886, 110 S.Ct. at 
1604, 108 L.Ed.2d at 890. 
 
Smith noted another anomaly in trying to review free-exercise claims under 
the compelling-state-interest standard.  There are no legal standards by which 
judges can consider, understand, weigh, and/or measure the particular religious 
beliefs of each plaintiff.  “What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to 
contradict a believer’s assertion that a particular act is ‘central’ to his personal 
faith?  * * * Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that 
courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion 
or the plausibility of a religious claim.” Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at 887, 110 S.Ct. at 
1604, 108 L.Ed.2d at 891.  Yet the majority here says that a judge must “first look 
at the beliefs of the person affected by the state action, and how those beliefs are 
affected by the state action. * * * [T]he plaintiff must show that his religious 
beliefs are truly held and that the governmental enactment has a coercive effect 
against him in the practice of his religion.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Smith also warned that the application of the compelling-state-interest 
standard to free-exercise claimants could impair the state’s ability to enforce what 
 
 
22
the citizens intend to be universally applicable rules.  As the Smith court reasoned, 
“The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially 
harmful conduct * * * ‘cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental 
action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.’ ”  Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at 
885, 110 S.Ct. at 1603, 108 L.Ed.2d at 889-890, quoting Lyng v. Northwest Indian 
Cemetery Protective Assn. (1988), 485 U.S. 439, 451, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 1326, 99 
L.Ed.2d 534, 548.  “Any society adopting such a system would be courting 
anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society’s diversity of 
religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them.”  Smith, 
supra, 494 U.S. at 888, 110 S.Ct. at 1605, 108 L.Ed.2d at 892. 
 
Of course, the majority’s approach accords with our country’s tradition of 
religious freedom.  The compelling-state-interest standard shields individuals who 
suffer from those forms of discrimination that inevitably result from the application 
of general laws to the diverse members of our increasingly multicultural society.  
See id., 494 U.S. at 903, 110 S.Ct. at 1613, 108 L.Ed.2d at 902 (O’Connor, J., 
concurring in judgment).  But when we weigh the potential benefits of reviewing 
free-exercise claims under the compelling-state-interest standard against the 
shortcomings of such an approach, Smith’s analysis seems more judicious.  The 
Smith court simply determined that strict scrutiny should be the exception, not the 
rule—an approach entirely consistent with the limited application of the 
 
 
23
compelling-state-interest standard in other legal contexts.  City of Boerne v. Flores 
(1997), 521 U.S. 507, 514, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 2161, 138 L.Ed.2d 624, 635. 
 
Finally, nothing in Smith—if we had adopted its reasoning today—would 
have prevented Ohio citizens from seeking specific religious accommodations in 
the General Assembly.  Even Smith’s staunchest critics concede that legislatures in 
this country have a long history of granting religious exemptions to otherwise 
generally applicable laws.  See City of Boerne v. Flores, supra, 521 U.S. at 558-
559, 117 S.Ct. at 2182-2183, 138 L.Ed.2d at 662-663 (O’Connor, J., dissenting, 
discusses the practice of pre-Constitutional legislatures excusing pacifists such as 
Quakers and Mennonites from military service).  A system that encourages citizens 
to pursue legislative accommodations to otherwise generally applicable laws 
intrudes less on the legislative sphere than the rigorous judicial scrutiny of facially 
neutral laws that today’s decision will surely increase. 
Conclusion 
 
In Smith, the Supreme Court conceded that its refusal to apply strict scrutiny 
could, at times, disadvantage religious minorities whose belief systems are 
inadvertently offended by generally applicable laws.  Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at 
890, 110 S.Ct. at 1606, 108 L.Ed.2d at 893.  But the Smith court preferred a 
deferential approach to “a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or 
in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all 
 
 
24
religious beliefs.”  Id.  Today, the majority chooses the system expressly rejected 
in Smith.  I respectfully dissent because I see the majority’s compelling-state-
interest standard as “open[ing] the prospect of constitutionally required religious 
exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.”  Id., 494 
U.S. at 888, 110 S.Ct. at 1605, 108 L.Ed.2d at 892.