Ohio Law Protects Religious Liberty More Than U.S.May 24, 2000
In a decision with national implications, the Ohio Supreme Court today held that the Ohio state constitution provides greater protection of religious liberties than the United States Constitution. In reversing a state appellate court decision in Humphrey v. Lane, the court adopted the position taken by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in an amicus curiae brief in the case.
Becket Fund attorney Roman Storzer, who wrote the amicus brief, noted that "Since the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed free exercise rights in a pair of 1990s decisions, the role of protecting religious liberty has fallen in large part to the states. Thanks to this decision, Ohioans once again can enjoy the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs as they see fit."
The plaintiff in the case, Wendall Humphrey, is a Native American who wears his hair long as a part of his practice of Native American Spirituality. But his employer, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, tried to fire him because he refused to cut his hair to collar length.
In its brief, The Becket Fund argued that the language of the Ohio Constitution (Section 7, Article I) "provides an affirmative right to practice religion freely," as distinguished from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which places "limitations on Congress' law-making power," and which has been interpreted since 1990 as simply requiring neutrality toward religion.
The Ohio Supreme Court held today that "the Ohio Constitution's free exercise protection is broader, and we therefore vary from the federal test . . . We apply a different standard to a different constitutional protection."
Storzer noted that, "Prior to 1990, when the government restricted the exercise of sincerely held religious beliefs, it generally needed to justify its actions by showing that it had a compelling interest and that the means employed were the least restrictive ones. But in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court decided that the U.S. Constitution provides no protection for the exercise of religious faith if it was in conflict with neutral and generally applicable laws. When Congress attempted to remedy this situation by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, the Supreme Court struck it down in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). The Ohio Supreme Court has stepped into the breach and upheld the fundamental religious liberties of its citizens. We hope many other states soon follow."Relevant Cases
|
