Opinion ID: 2639069
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Religious bigotry

Text: Smith could be read, as the majority apparently reads it, to suggest that religion is not entitled to constitutional protection unless the government action expressly and specifically targets religious expression. Under this interpretation, protection for religious liberty requires proof of religious bigotry, i.e., proof that government officials acted out of anti-religious motives. Thus, Smith  even as modified by Lukumi  would prohibit infringements of religious liberties only if a statute has the object or purpose of ... suppress[ing] religion or religious conduct or involves [o]fficial action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment. ( Lukumi, supra, 508 U.S. at pp. 533-534, 113 S.Ct. 2217.) Since this statute imposes a mandate on all employers that provide prescription coverage, it arguably does not target religious conduct. On one level, religious interests and secular interests are treated with equal dignity, and since the mandate provides an escape hatch, Catholic Charities' attempt to claim specifically unequal treatment faces formidable obstacles. Consequently, the majority finds Catholic Charities has failed to prove an anti-religious motive and the statute is neutral.