In Employment Division v. Smith, what was determined about neutral laws of general applicability?

In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court established a significant precedent regarding the treatment of religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The ruling articulated that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they have the effect of burdening religious practices. This means that as long as a law is applied uniformly to everyone and is not specifically targeting a particular religion or religious practice, it is permissible, even if it inadvertently affects religious individuals.

The Court reasoned that the government has a legitimate interest in passing laws that apply to all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, to maintain social order and protect the general welfare. Therefore, unless a law specifically discriminates against a religious practice or is not generally applicable, it will not be evaluated under a stricter scrutiny standard.

This decision essentially shifted the legal landscape away from requiring religious exemptions for generally applicable laws, thus reinforcing the idea that the government may regulate conduct through neutral laws without accommodating every religious belief.