Opinion ID: 894904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Prohibition Against State Regulation of Religious Convictions

Text: The Religion Clauses provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. [5] U.S. CONST. amend. I. They apply to the states through the doctrine of incorporation in the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). The Free Exercise Clause erects an unqualified prohibition against government interference with beliefs. State v. Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church, Inc., 683 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex.1984). The Clause also protects certain conduct motivated by religious beliefs. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982). Under the Establishment Clause, the state may not prefer religion to irreligion or one religion to others, nor may the government exhibit hostility towards religion. Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); see also Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 703, 114 S.Ct. 2481, 129 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 609-16, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (Souter, J., concurring). These constitutional principles guide the evaluation of the state regulations at issue. A. The Free Exercise Clause The United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion from undue state infringement. U.S. CONST. amend I, cl. 2, amend XIV, § 1; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940); see also TEX. CONST. art. I, §§ 6, 29. [6] The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious freedom by ensuring that the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961). This was reiterated in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment obviously excludes all `governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.' 494 U.S. 872, 877, 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (quoting Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (1963)). The first issue is whether the statutes at issue regulate religious beliefs. [7] 1. State Regulation of the Term Seminary Section 61.313(a) of the Texas Education Code requires that all private postsecondary educational institutions in Texas must submit to state regulation in order to call themselves seminaries. Specifically, section 61.313(a) provides: Unless the institution has been issued a certificate of authority under this sub-chapter, a person may not: (1) use the term college, university, seminary, school of medicine, medical school, health science center, school of law, law school, or law center in the official name or title of a nonexempt private postsecondary educational institution; or (2) describe an institution using a term listed in Subdivision (1) or a term having a similar meaning. TEX. EDUC.CODE § 61.313(a). To comply with this section of the Education Code, Tyndale must submit to twenty-one state-established standards. See id.; 19 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 7.7. Tyndale complains that such state regulation violates its rights under the Free Exercise Clause. The State contends that its regulation of the term seminary is neutral and generally applicable, and thus permissible under Smith. I disagree. The State does not have the authority to determine whether a private postsecondary educational institution that professes a sincere faith may call itself a seminary. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 888, 110 S.Ct. 1595; Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989). Requiring religious organizations to submit to state regulation in order to call themselves seminaries is at odds with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Board argued in its briefing that the term seminary is not an exclusively religious one, and the court of appeals apparently agreed. 114 S.W.3d at 633. The Board contended, citing Church v. Bullock, 104 Tex. 1, 109 S.W. 115, 117 (1908), that a seminary is a place of education and only departs from this secular meaning when the adjectives theological or religious are placed in front of it to take on the meaning of a place specifically for the preparation of men for the ministry, or at least, for the teaching of religious doctrines. In postsubmission briefing, the Board acknowledged that seminary is a religious term but asserts that the term also conveys a secular meaning. Statutory interpretation begins with the plain and common meaning of the statute's words. McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 745 (Tex.2003). As enacted in 1975, section 61.313(a) only included the terms college and university. Act of May 28, 1975, 64th Leg., R.S., ch. 587, § 1, 1975 Tex. Gen. Laws 1867, 1870. The Legislature added the term seminary in 1997, along with the terms school of medicine, medical school, health science center, school of law, law school, and law center. Act of May 9, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 232, § 1, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 1147, 1149. If seminary has a predominantly secular meaning, as the Board contends, there is no reason for the Legislature to add it to the list of protected terms, as the addition would only repeat the statute's reference to other secular educational institutions. We presume that each word in the statute has meaning and that the Legislature added seminary to the statute to include within the scope of the statute entities that were not covered by other terms. See Perkins v. State, 367 S.W.2d 140, 146 (Tex.1963). The inclusion of seminary added religious institutions to the scope of the statute. In addition, this Court has pondered the meaning of this word before. This Court reasoned in Bullock that [a] seminary is a place of education . . . specifically a school for the education of men for the priesthood or ministry. A seminary being a place of education, the adjectives theological or religious necessarily give to it the meaning of a place specifically for the preparation of men for the ministry, or at least, for the teaching of religious doctrines. The words are commonly so used. 109 S.W. at 117 (quoting 25 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 286). In that case, this Court did not hold that it was only when combined with the words religious or theological that the word seminary took on the meaning proposed by HEB Ministries in this case. See id. Seminary has a primarily religious connotation, and when combined with the word theological, as in Tyndale Theological Seminary, it has an exclusively religious meaning. The court of appeals relied, in part, on the definition of seminary given in Black's Law Dictionary: [a]n educational institution, such as a college, academy, or other school. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1392 (8th ed.2004). Webster's dictionary, however, defines the same term as an institution for the training of candidates for the priesthood, ministry, or rabbinate. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 2064 (1961). Even the Board acknowledges that Tyndale's avowed purpose is to train ministers to work in churches. In the context and usage of the statute, the word seminary included in the State's statutory scheme refers to institutions that provide religious education, instruction, and training. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that, in some circumstances, a seminary qualifies as a church for purposes of the ministerial exception. EEOC v. Sw. Baptist Theological Seminary, 651 F.2d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 1981). In Southwestern Baptist, the court observed that the defendant seminary was an integral part of a church, essential to the paramount function of training ministers who will continue the faith. Id. The court also held that the seminary's faculty qualified as ministers for purposes of the exception because the faculty members were intermediaries between the [Southern Baptist] Convention and the future ministers of many local Baptist Churches. Id. While seminarian policies and philosophies will differ among institutions, see, e.g., EEOC v. Miss. Coll., 626 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir.1980), Southwestern Baptist is instructive because it recognizes that seminaries often function similarly to churches or other organized congregations. The Board acknowledges that Tyndale's purpose is to train ministers to work in churches. Furthermore, their faculty members may well be akin to church clergy in addition to providing general educational instruction on secular subjects. I conclude, as does the Court, that the word seminary admits a primarily religious meaning, and now consider whether, consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, the State may dictate which institutions may call themselves seminaries. The Supreme Court has espoused a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, an independence from secular control or manipulation, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952) (declaring unconstitutional a state law that granted ownership of church property to the American branch of the Russian Orthodox Church). This spirit of freedom is reflected in many of the Court's decisions regarding state interference in the internal affairs of churches and religious organizations. See, e.g., NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 99 S.Ct. 1313, 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (1979); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1, 50 S.Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929). In 1929, the Supreme Court refused to decide whether an individual was qualified to be a chaplain in the Roman Catholic Church. Gonzalez, 280 U.S. at 17, 50 S.Ct. 5. Because the appointment is a canonical act, it is the function of the church authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them. Id. In Catholic Bishop of Chicago, the Supreme Court considered whether church-operated schools were subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). 440 U.S. at 491, 99 S.Ct. 1313. Although the Court ultimately concluded that Congress did not intend to include church-operated schools within the purview of the National Labor Relations Act, the Court admonished that such an exercise of jurisdiction would raise serious First Amendment questions because the NLRB's actions would go beyond resolving factual issues. Id. at 502, 504, 99 S.Ct. 1313. They would necessarily involve inquiry into the good-faith of the position asserted by the clergy-administrators and its relationship to the school's religious mission. It is not only the conclusions that may be reached by the Board which may impinge on rights guaranteed by the Religion Clauses, but also the very process of inquiry leading to findings and conclusions. Id. To decide which institutions are seminaries and which are not, the Board necessarily would have to make judgments concerning which convictions, doctrines, and faiths are religious in nature and which are not. Because Tyndale is HEB Ministries' training institution for ministries, the Board would have to consider whether the school is fulfilling its religious mission to the ministry and if its teachings are sufficiently theological in nature to be a seminary. For the government to determine whether sincerely professed religious beliefs are actually secular is an endeavor fraught with the sort of entanglement that the Constitution forbids. Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 697, 109 S.Ct. 2136. This it cannot do. See Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. at 502, 99 S.Ct. 1313. Once a person professes a sincere religious conviction or faith, the person's right to her faith is protected by the Constitution and not subject to governmental determinations that they are not religious in nature. See id. The Board can no more prohibit a church from calling its school a seminary than it can prohibit a religious congregation from calling itself a church. HEB Ministries' beliefs are protected by the Constitution from government regulation. Because the term seminary admits of a primarily religious meaning, the State has no authority to prohibit Tyndale from using the term in its title, and may not constitutionally require private postsecondary institutions to submit to state regulation in order to do so. Accordingly, section 61.313(a) of the Texas Education Code is unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates this use of the term seminary. The Court's result is the same, but its reasoning is a bit different. It adds a distinction between religious institutions that teach a primarily religious curriculum and those which teach a secular curriculum. That distinction is unnecessary. In my view, a religious institution may teach the curriculum it desires, religious, secular, or mixed, and call itself a seminary without first submitting to state regulation. B. State Regulation of Issuance of Degrees by a Religious Institution Religious beliefs are immune from government regulation. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). Conduct motivated by religious beliefs also enjoys important constitutional protection. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-33, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993). However, the Supreme Court has held that religiously motivated conduct is not always immune from state regulation. For example, states may ban the taking of controlled narcotics as a religious practice. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 890, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (1990). Government prohibition of the religious practice of polygamy is not contrary to the constitutional right to religious freedom. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164-66, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878). The Amish are required, as are other employees, to pay social security taxes even though their faith precludes their participation in government support programs. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 258-61, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982); see Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303-04, 60 S.Ct. 900. And church-affiliated day care facilities generally are not exempt from compliance with regulations to protect the health and safety of the children in their care. State v. Corpus Christi People's Baptist Church, 683 S.W.2d 692, 696-97 (Tex.1984). To implicate religious Free Exercise Clause protections, the conduct at issue must be motivated by religious beliefs, which underlies the debate over whether placing Ph.D. at the top of graduation parchment is religiously motivated conduct. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 532, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Supreme Court has developed different levels of scrutiny to apply to state regulations that burden religious conduct. Laws that target religious practices are subject to the most rigorous constitutional scrutiny under religion clause jurisprudence. Id. at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Such state burdens must be narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling governmental interest. Id.; Smith, 494 U.S. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Laws that substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even without expressly targeting religious practices for regulation, are likewise subject to strict scrutiny. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402-03, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) (The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest.); Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 141, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (1987) (The Appeals Commission does not seriously contend that its denial of benefits can withstand strict scrutiny; rather it urges that we hold that its justification should be determined under the less rigorous standard. . . . We reject the argument again today.). State action that does not target religion or substantially burden religious conduct but only incidentally burdens religious practices may pass constitutional muster if it is otherwise valid and does not impact religion disparately, i.e., the laws are neutral and generally applicable. Smith, 494 U.S. at 878, 110 S.Ct. 1595 ([I]f prohibiting the exercise of religion . . . is not the object of the tax but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.). The Supreme Court rejected the argument that neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practices are subject to strict scrutiny and suggested that a reasonable relationship test determines whether they are constitutional. See id. at 885-86 & n. 3, 110 S.Ct. 1595. The Supreme Court established these standards in several cases over the years. Although the opinions have been the subject of an active discussion in legal publications, the Supreme Court's pronouncements are binding until changed. See Kathleen A. Brady, Religious Organizations and Free Exercise: The Surprising Lessons of Smith, 2004 BYU L. REV. 1633 (2004); Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, The Vulnerability of Conscience: The Constitutional Basis for Protecting Religious Conduct, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 1245 (1994); Douglas Laycock, Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion, 39 DEPAUL L.REV. 993 (1990); Douglas Laycock, The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty, 40 CATH. LAW. 25 (2000); Michael W. McConnell, Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision, 57 U. CHI. L. REV. 1109 (1990); Michael W. McConnell & Richard A. Posner, An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1 (1989). In the seminal case of Sherbert v. Verner , the Supreme Court held that a substantial burden on the exercise of religious beliefs is subject to strict scrutiny. 374 U.S. 398, 402-03, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). A member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church quit employment that required her to work on her Saturday sabbath, and was subsequently denied unemployment benefits for declining without good cause to accept other employment that also required work on Saturday. Id. at 406, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The Court framed the issue as whether some compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the . . . statute justifies the substantial infringement of the appellant's First Amendment right. Id. Finding no compelling governmental interest at issue, the Court held that the denial of unemployment benefits violated the plaintiff's free-exercise rights. Id. at 406-07, 83 S.Ct. 1790; see Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718, 101 S.Ct. 1425. In 1990, the Supreme Court addressed an incidental rather than substantial infringement on religious conduct. Explicitly addressing for the first time religious conduct restricted by a state criminal law of general applicability, the Supreme Court in Smith applied a lower standard to the constitutional challenge in that case than it did in Sherbert. 494 U.S. at 885-86, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Two members of the Native American Church brought a free exercise challenge to an Oregon law criminalizing the knowing or intentional possession of a `controlled substance' unless the substance has been prescribed by a medical practitioner. Id. at 874, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (referring to ORE. REV. STAT. § 475.992(4) (1987)). The plaintiffs were discharged from their jobs for ingesting peyote, a controlled substance under Oregon law, for sacramental purposes during a Native American Church ceremony. Id. They claimed the Oregon law was unconstitutional as applied to them because it interfered with their exercise of religion. Id. The Court reaffirmed that first and foremost the Free Exercise Clause means the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires, and precludes all `governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.' Id. at 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 402, 83 S.Ct. 1790). Distinguishing the regulation of religious beliefs from the regulation of conduct, the Court observed that it has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. Id. at 878-79, 83 S.Ct. 1790. 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).' Id. at 879, 83 S.Ct. 1790 (quoting Lee, 455 U.S. at 263 n. 3, 102 S.Ct. 1051). To require strict scrutiny of the criminal statute in the case would produce . . . a private right to ignore generally applicable laws . . . [which] is a constitutional anomaly. Id. at 886, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The Court held that neither the text of the Constitution nor Court precedent require that states allow use of a controlled substance as a religious practice. Id. at 887-88, 83 S.Ct. 1790. The Court expressly declined to extend the strict scrutiny balancing test of Sherbert to govern the analysis of generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct. Id. at 889-90, 83 S.Ct. 1790. Thus, the state need not establish a compelling interest to institute incidental burdens on a person's religious practices, so long as it does so through a neutral and generally-applicable criminal law that does not otherwise violate the Constitution. Id. [8] The Court affirmed the holding in Smith three years later in Lukumi, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Lukumi involved a set of city ordinances that prohibited the religious sacrifice of animals by the Santeria religion and imposed criminal sanctions for their violation. Id. at 525-28, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Court reaffirmed the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability and only incidentally burdens religious practices need not be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest. Id. at 531-32, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The city ordinances at issue were held unconstitutional, however, because they were neither neutral nor generally applicable but targeted the religious practices of the Santeria religion. Id. at 541, 545-46, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In Lukumi, the Court observed that if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral. Id. at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Although passing facial review, the laws in question were not neutral because Santeria worship was the object or target of the city's ordinances. Id. at 534-40, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Court determined that the design of the laws accomplished a religious gerrymander, an impermissible attempt to target petitioners and their religious practices. Id. at 535, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (citation omitted). Addressing the general applicability requirement, the Lukumi Court observed that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief and that this principle is essential to the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 543, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Although the Court did not define the standard for general applicability, the Court held that these ordinances fall well below the minimum standard necessary to protect First Amendment rights. Id. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court observed that the ordinances were vastly underinclusive and included many secular exemptions. Id. at 543-46, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Failing both the neutrality and general applicability prongs, the Lukumi Court applied the most rigorous of scrutiny to the City of Hialeah's ordinances and held them unconstitutional because they were designed to persecute or oppress a religion. Id. at 547, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The parties disagree which level of scrutiny should apply to section 61.304 of the Education Code. HEB Ministries contends that because the State's regulatory scheme provides for secular exemptions, but not religious ones, it is not neutral and, accordingly, the statutory scheme must be analyzed under strict scrutiny. See Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 537, 543-46, 113 S.Ct. 2217; see also Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir.1999). Specifically, HEB Ministries points to section 61.303 of the Education Code, which exempts some institutions from being required to have a Board-issued certificate of authority if they have been accredited by a state approved accrediting agency. HEB also cites section 61.313, which exempts some educational institutions from the prohibition on protected terms if they used the terms college or university in their title prior to September 1, 1975. TEX. EDUC.CODE §§ 61.303, 61.313. HEB Ministries further contends strict scrutiny applies because this is a hybrid rights case involving multiple constitutional claims, including claims based on the Free Speech Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Establishment Clause. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 881, 110 S.Ct. 1595. The State contends that section 61.304 is neutral and generally applicable, and therefore under Smith, this Court must not apply the Sherbert strict scrutiny analysis. According to the State, the laws at issue apply to all private postsecondary educational institutionsreligious and secular alikethat grant postsecondary academic degrees. The State also contends there is no evidence that the object of the statutory scheme was to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation or to suppress religious beliefs. As explained in Lukumi, the beginning point is the statute's text, for the minimum requirement of neutrality is that a law not discriminate on its face. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 533, 113 S.Ct. 2217. A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context. Id. A facial reference to religion in a statute does not necessarily render it presumptively unconstitutional, see Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 725, 124 S.Ct. 1307, 158 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004), nor is facial neutrality alone determinative. Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 533-34, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, forbids subtle departures from neutrality, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 452, 91 S.Ct. 828, 28 L.Ed.2d 168 (1971), and covert suppression of particular religious beliefs. Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 703, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (opinion of Burger, C.J.). Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Court must survey meticulously the circumstances of governmental categories to eliminate, as it were, religious gerrymanders. Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 696, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring); see Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 534, 113 S.Ct. 2217. According to Tyndale, section 61.304 is unconstitutional because it forces Tyndale to submit to the State's regulations in order to award college degrees to describe the educational attainment of its students. See Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490, 502, 99 S.Ct. 1313, 59 L.Ed.2d 533 (1979). Section 61.304 precludes private postsecondary institutions from awarding degrees unless the Board has issued the institution a certificate of authority, and to obtain such a certificate requires submission to the twenty-one standards governing curriculum, faculty, and school governance. TEX. EDUC.CODE § 61.304. The Legislature explained its purposes for enacting these requirements for private postsecondary education institutions. It is the policy and purpose of the State of Texas to prevent deception of the public resulting from the conferring and use of fraudulent or substandard college and university degrees. . . . Id. § 61.301. The Legislature also explained: Because degrees and equivalent indicators of educational attainment are used by employers in judging the training of prospective employees, by public and private professional groups in determining qualifications for admission to and continuance of practice, and by the general public in assessing the competence of persons engaged in a wide range of activities necessary to the general welfare, regulation by law of the evidences of college and university educational attainment is in the public interest. To the same end the protection of legitimate institutions and of those holding degrees from them is also in the public interest. Id. This Court recognized recently, quoting Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), that education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 176 S.W.3d 746, 799 (Tex.2005). The United States Supreme Court held that Congress' stated purpose in enacting the Higher Education Act of assisting colleges in ensuring that large numbers of youth obtain educations is a legitimate secular objective entirely appropriate for governmental action. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 679, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971). The Supreme Court further explained that [t]here is no doubt as to the power of a State, having high responsibility for education for its citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the control of education. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925). And the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the privilege of granting degrees, evidential of academic achievement, is very intimately related to the public welfare, and is unquestionably subject to regulation by the State. Shelton Coll. v. State Bd. of Educ., 48 N.J. 501, 226 A.2d 612, 618 (1967) (quoting ELLIOTT, THE COLLEGES AND THE COURTS 200 (1936)). The purpose of ensuring the quality of postsecondary education provided by institutions in this State and protecting the integrity of college degrees issued therefrom is plainly within the State's substantial interest in education. The Legislature's objective is to ensure that the granting of a degree is a meaningful act grounded in established curricular and instructional standards and that persons who rely on a postsecondary degree, lawfully issued by a Texas institution, may accurately presume a level of competence and qualification. See TEX. EDUC.CODE § 61.301. The Legislature enforces this objective in education, an area in which it has a substantial and legitimate interest. See Yoder, 406 U.S. at 213, 92 S.Ct. 1526; Neeley, 176 S.W.3d at 753. Moreover, all postsecondary institutions, whether secular or religious, private or public, must submit to the State's standards to grant college or graduate degrees. See TEX. EDUC.CODE §§ 61.0512, 61.304; 19 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 7.7(13) (requiring certain degree programs at private postsecondary institutions to include Humanities and Fine Arts, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Natural Sciences and Mathematics as well as courses to develop skills in written and oral communication). An institution may operate outside those standards if it chooses to use nomenclature on its graduation documents other than college or graduate degrees (e.g., bachelor's level certificate), but to issue degrees it must comply with public standards. There is no disparate treatment of any category of institutions. The law here is neutral and generally applicable and prohibits the unauthorized issuance of college and graduate degrees, currently enforced by both civil and criminal penalties. The Supreme Court held in Smith that individuals must comply with valid laws prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. 494 U.S. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595. In this case, I do not believe the Constitution bans states from promulgating generally applicable standards that must be met before postsecondary institutions may confer degrees on its students. [9] The Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas has opined on this very issue: whether rights under the Free Exercise Clause permit a religious organization to operate a degree-awarding university without compliance with state standards. Op. Tex. Att'y Gen. No. JC-0200 (2000). Attorney General John Cornyn concluded that the application to religious educational institutions of state laws regulating the awarding of degrees does not violate the law restricting governmental burdens on the free exercise of religion. Id. [10] The only other state supreme court to address this issue also reached the same outcome. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Postsecondary Education Authorization Act's prohibition on the issuance of degrees by postsecondary institutions, unless they complied with state standards, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. State ex rel. McLemore v. Clarksville Sch. of Theology, 636 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn.1982). It held that the granting of degrees is unquestionably subject to regulation by the State and is not a religious activity. 636 S.W.2d at 709; see Shelton Coll. v. State Bd. of Educ., 48 N.J. 501, 226 A.2d 612 (1967) (rejecting a claim that the First Amendment right of free speech prohibited the state from regulating the power to confer a bachelor's degree). To the extent an institution desires to enter into this sphere of legitimate state regulatione.g., the granting of college, university, and graduate degrees by private postsecondary educational institutionsit must comply with state mandates that are not unnecessarily intrusive and are prompted by legitimate objectives. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595; Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261, 102 S.Ct. 1051 (1982). A contrary conclusion would allow entities, regardless of their motives, to circumvent the statutory requirements under the guise of religious practices by issuing degrees supported by little or no meaningful educational attainment. This would undermine the legitimate objectives of precluding issuance of fraudulent degrees and ensuring that society could rely on the attainment of a college degree as evidence of meaningful postsecondary educational accomplishment. Because in this case Tyndale is engaging in commercial conduct the State is free to regulatethe granting of educational degrees, associate degrees, bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and doctorate degrees,I conclude that section 61.304 of the Education Code does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution. See id. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595; Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531-33, 113 S.Ct. 2217. The plurality concludes that Tyndale has a constitutional right to issue college and graduate degrees without compliance with the Legislature's standards. Of course, Tyndale does not frame its case in this fashion because the idea in this context that only one type of postsecondary institution, a seminary, has an unfettered constitutional right to put the title college degree at the top of its graduation documents, without regard to compliance with public standards, is a tenuous notion. Instead, Tyndale enmeshes its argument on this issue with the bedrock principle that the State cannot regulate the doctrinal beliefs and teachings of a church's school. Wrapped in this theological flag, Tyndale's arguments then focus on religious beliefs and bury the real issue of the appropriate words to title a graduation document beneath it. I disagree that the Constitution bars the Legislature from establishing generally applicable standards for the granting of postsecondary educational degrees. This question concerns conduct whether Tyndale can put college degree, with no disclaimer or explanation that it does not comply with public standards at the top of its graduation documents. No one, including the Board, disputes Tyndale's right to believe and teach whatever it chooses and hire whomever it desires to do so. Of course, it sounds patently offensive to religious freedoms to assert that the State is barring Mother Teresa and Reverend Billy Graham from teaching at a seminary, and if correct, it would be. But doctrine and instruction are not tantamount to stamping a title on a piece of parchment handed out at graduation. Governments cannot regulate what a seminary teaches, who it hires to teach, or how its administration is structured. These matters are central to the seminary's beliefs and convictions, and the freedom to believe as one chooses is absolute. See Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603, 81 S.Ct. 1144, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 (1961). Typing the letters Ph.D. on a parchment is an act that is not inherent to Tyndale's religious beliefs or engaged in for religious reasons, and should not be accorded constitutional protection under the religion clauses. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595. The Legislature could decide to allow it, but the Constitution does not require it. The plurality strains to persuade that because the Board does not allow Tyndale to confer degrees without compliance with the statutes, that it is dictating the doctrine that may be taught at the seminary. I remain unconvinced. [11] Tyndale, however, is correct that it should be able to use meaningful designations on official looking paper to convey what it believes to be substantial educational achievement. ( See infra, Section III). This does not require, as the plurality concludes, creation of a constitutional right of religious, but not non-religious, postsecondary institutions to issue college and graduate degrees. Although different from this case, the plurality's reasoning would grant a constitutional right to a religious group to confer a doctor of philosophy degree on a graduation parchment after providing an hour of instruction. The Education Code's broad definition of the term degree precludes use of many words similar to degree. Tyndale asserts that section 61.304 of the Education Code, by virtue of the definition of degree in 61.302(1), regulates virtually all useful terminology that it may use to convey the educational achievement of its students. Although I believe that the granting of degrees is conduct the Legislature may regulate, the State's attempt to regulate Tyndale's use of any language suggesting a similar or competing level of educational competency also must be valid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.