Which case extended the Free Exercise rights to apply to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Which case extended the Free Exercise rights to apply to state actions through the Fourteenth Amendment?

• A. Cantwell v. Connecticut
• B. Reynolds v. United States
• C. Everson v. Board of Education
• D. Oregon v. Smith

Answer: (A)

Extending Free Exercise protections to actions by state governments is about applying the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, known as incorporation. Cantwell v. Connecticut is the case where the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause applies to state action via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court struck down a state statute regulating solicitation of religious materials, ruling that punishing or restricting religious expression at the state level violates the Free Exercise rights protected from state interference. This decision established that individuals’ religious freedoms are not only federal protections but also protections against state and local laws. Reynolds v. United States, by contrast, dealt with a federal law and the basic limits of religious exemptions to general laws, before incorporation was established. Everson v. Board of Education is about the Establishment Clause and its incorporation to apply to the states, not about extending Free Exercise to the states. Oregon v. Smith addresses how neutral laws of general applicability interact with religious exercise and does not beget incorporation of Free Exercise rights to the states.

Extending Free Exercise protections to actions by state governments is about applying the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment, known as incorporation. Cantwell v. Connecticut is the case where the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause applies to state action via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court struck down a state statute regulating solicitation of religious materials, ruling that punishing or restricting religious expression at the state level violates the Free Exercise rights protected from state interference. This decision established that individuals’ religious freedoms are not only federal protections but also protections against state and local laws.

Reynolds v. United States, by contrast, dealt with a federal law and the basic limits of religious exemptions to general laws, before incorporation was established. Everson v. Board of Education is about the Establishment Clause and its incorporation to apply to the states, not about extending Free Exercise to the states. Oregon v. Smith addresses how neutral laws of general applicability interact with religious exercise and does not beget incorporation of Free Exercise rights to the states.