Opinion ID: 172208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: First Amendment Freedom of Religion (Free Exercise) Claim

Text: Corder claims that the School District substantially burdened her sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it disciplined her for her valedictory speech. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law. . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]. U.S. Const. amend. I. While the First Amendment provides absolute protection to religious thoughts and beliefs, the [F]ree [E]xercise [C]lause does not prohibit governments from validly regulating religious conduct. Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 649 (10th Cir.2006) (citing Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). Neutral rules of general applicability normally do not raise free exercise concerns even if they incidentally burden a particular religious practice or belief. Id. (citing Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (stating that the Free Exercise Clause 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) (internal quotation omitted))). Thus, a law that is both neutral and generally applicable need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest to survive a constitutional challenge. Id. On the other hand, if a law that burdens a religious practice is not neutral or generally applicable, it is subject to strict scrutiny, and the burden on religious conduct violates the Free Exercise Clause unless it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest. Id. (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993)). Therefore, our first step in analyzing Corder's free exercise claim is to determine which level of scrutiny to apply. Id.; see e.g., Axson-Flynn, 356 F.3d at 1294 (Depending on the nature of the challenged law or government action, a free exercise claim can prompt either strict scrutiny or rational basis review. (internal quotation omitted)). A law is neutral so long as its object is something other than the infringement or restriction of religious practices. Grace United Methodist Church, 451 F.3d at 649-50 (citing Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., 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)). It is clear from the facts Corder has alleged in her complaint that Corder was only required to follow the same religion-neutral policies as the other valedictorians. She was disciplined for her speech because she did not follow the religion-neutral policy of submitting her speech for prior review. Simply because Corder's valedictory speech happened to mention her religious views does not support the allegation that she was disciplined for her religious views. Corder's complaint does not permit this inference, when the facts of her complaint state she was the sole valedictorian that did not follow the rules and therefore the sole valedictorian that was disciplined. Neutral rules of general applicability ordinarily do not raise free exercise concerns even if they incidentally burden a particular religious practice or belief. Axson-Flynn, 356 F.3d at 1294. We conclude that the School District did not violate Corder's First Amendment free exercise of religion rights by disciplining her for presenting a different valedictory speech than the one she gave to her principal for prior review.