Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

  Finally,  in  Church  of  Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hia-
leah, we struck down three facially neutral city ordinances 
that  outlawed  certain  forms  of  animal  slaughter.    Mem-
bers  of  the  Santeria  religion  challenged  the  ordinances 
under the Free Exercise Clause, alleging that despite their 
facial  neutrality,  the  ordinances  had  a  discriminatory
purpose  easy  to  ferret  out:  prohibiting  sacrificial  rituals
integral to Santeria but distasteful to local residents.  We 
agreed.  Before explaining why the challenged ordinances 
were  not,  in  fact,  neutral  or  generally  applicable,  the
Court  recounted  the  fundamentals  of  our  free  exercise 
jurisprudence.    A  law,  we  said,  may  not  discriminate 
against  “some  or  all  religious  beliefs.”    508  U. S.,  at  532. 
Nor  may  a  law  regulate  or  outlaw  conduct  because  it  is
religiously  motivated.    And,  citing  McDaniel  and  Smith, 
we  restated  the  now-familiar  refrain:  The  Free  Exercise 
Clause  protects  against  laws  that  “ ‘impose[ ]  special  dis- 
abilities on the basis of . . . religious status.’ ”  508 U. S., at 
533 (quoting Smith, 494 U. S., at 877); see also Mitchell v. 
Helms,  530  U. S.  793,  828  (2000)  (plurality  opinion)  (not-
ing “our decisions that have prohibited governments from 
discriminating in the distribution of public benefits based 
upon  religious  status  or  sincerity”  (citing  Rosenberger  v. 
Rector  and  Visitors  of  Univ.  of  Va.,  515  U. S.  819  (1995); 
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 
508  U. S.  384  (1993);  Widmar  v.  Vincent,  454  U. S.  263 
(1981))). 

III 
A 

The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against 
otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a 
—————— 

case  concerned  government  regulation  of  physical  acts,  “[t]he  present
case,  in  contrast,  concerns  government  interference  with  an  internal 
church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” 
565 U. S., at 190.