Final answer:
The Free Exercise Clause protects religious practices from government interference, requiring a compelling state interest to limit them. The Sherbert test and RFRA are key in understanding legal standards of review, while public education cases illustrate the practical application and controversy involving the Free Exercise Clause.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding the Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause is a critical component of the First Amendment that safeguards individuals' rights to practice their religion without undue government interference. This clause has been the center of many Supreme Court cases, where the government is generally required to prove a compelling state interest before it can limit religious practices. Important principles relevant to cases involving the Free Exercise Clause include the Sherbert test and the ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which states that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
The Sherbert Test and Religious Freedom Restoration Act
In determining violations of the Free Exercise Clause, the Sherbert test is used. This requires that for a law to be upheld, there must be a compelling governmental interest addressed in the least restrictive means possible. Additionally, in response to Supreme Court rulings that reduced protections, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to ensure that individuals whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by the government can still claim their rights.
Free Exercise Clause and Education
Education has often been at the forefront of Free Exercise Clause discussions, particularly in the context of public education and school prayer, which can be seen as a collision between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. The protection of religious practices for students is guaranteed, and cases often explore the boundary between individual freedoms and broader societal interests.