Alabama Bishops from several denominations have sued to strike down an Alabama law that "makes it a crime to transport, harbor or rent property to people who are known to be in the country illegally, and it renders any contracts with illegal immigrants null. To some church leaders — who say they will not be able to give people rides, invite them to worship services or perform marriages and baptisms — the law essentially criminalizes basic parts of Christian ministry." As the Catholic Archbishop puts it, the law “attacks our core understanding of what it means to be a church.” See here.
At first glance, the religious challenge to the law would seem doomed. Employment Division v. Smith held that a generally applicable statute that hits religion does not give rise to a freedom of religion issue. On the other hand, Smith contains an exception for those religion claims that can be combined with another constitutional claim (the hybrid exception). The complaint as filed alleges a number of hybrid rights including association and equality. If the Bishops win on this claim, the case will surely go to the Supreme Court unless the Alabama law is wholly preempted by conflicting federal law.
Missing from the original complaint, however, is an even stronger claim. The Alabama Constitution (one of the longest in the world) specifically refers to and rejects Employment Division v. Smith (nothing prevents the states from affording more generous religious protection than provided by Smith). I would think this should be added to the original complaint if it has not been done so in the past week.
It will be interesting to see how conservative politicians line up on their hostility to immigrants versus their commitment to religious freedom.
Comments