Task: Text Completion
Input (English): free exercise claim pursuant to the “hybrid rights” doctrine. Kane, 2006 WL 997217 *26. The Kane court agreed that “Smith may be read to impose strict scrutiny in ‘hybrid situation[s]’ in which a law ‘involve[s] not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections.’ ” Kane, 2006 WL 997217 *26 (quoting Smith, 494 U.S. at 881-82, 110 S.Ct. 1595). To assert a “hybrid rights” claim in the Ninth Circuit, however, “a free exercise plaintiff must make out a colorable claim that a companion right has been violated — that is, a fair probability or a likelihood, but not a certitude, of success on the merits.’ ” Kane, 2006 WL 997217 *26 (quoting Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 1999)). See also, Truth, 542 F.3d at 651 (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiffs’ free speech claim fails 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that free exercise claims implicating other constitutional protections such as free speech could qualify for strict scrutiny review to the extent the plaintiff could make out a colorable claim that it was denied an exemption from the school districts nondiscrimination claim based on religion or content of speech (B) holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech (C) holding that campaign money laundering was in furtherance of political speech but an invalid exercise of free speech rights because it was illegal (D) holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause (E) holding that claim under connecticut law for employer discrimination based upon the employees exercise of privacy and free speech rights not preempted
Output (English): (A)