We filed an Amicus Brief before the United States Supreme Court supporting plaintiff Miller in Miller v. McDonald, urging the Court to reconsider Employment Division v. Smith and restore robust First Amendment Free Exercise protections—so that “neutral, generally applicable” laws that substantially burden religious practice receive meaningful constitutional review and tailored exemptions. The American Hindu Jewish Congress (AHJC)—founded in 2025 and representing Hindu and Jewish Americans amid rising antisemitism and Hinduphobia—joined this case to defend minority faiths from government overreach and ensure that unpopular religious practices are not sacrificed to majoritarian pressure.
What’s at stake
In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that a “neutral, generally applicable” law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if it burdens religion. The brief explains that this rule has “disproportionately harmed minority religious groups,” contradicting the First Amendment’s counter-majoritarian purpose. AHJC urges the Court to reconsider Smith.
How Smith harms minority faiths—real cases
- Hmong autopsy case: After Smith, a Rhode Island court reversed a ruling that had protected Hmong parents whose beliefs forbade autopsy of their son—because the autopsy statute was “neutral” and “generally applicable.”
- Jewish autopsy case: A Michigan court likewise rejected a Jewish mother’s Free Exercise claim against an autopsy mandate, calling the burden “incidental.”
- COVID-19 restrictions: Churches in New Mexico and Virginia lost Free Exercise challenges to emergency limits on worship gatherings under the Smith framework.
- Single-sex spa policy: A Korean spa with religious objections to mixed-sex nudity was forced, under state law, to admit biological males; the Ninth Circuit upheld the requirement as neutral and generally applicable.
- Amish visibility emblems: Kentucky’s high court applied Smith to sustain prosecutions of Amish buggy drivers who, for religious reasons, refused bright orange signs, despite offering reflective-tape alternatives.
These results show how Smith leaves minority believers with little judicial recourse when broad laws collide with conscience.
The First Amendment is a shield, not a vote count
The brief underscores that the Bill of Rights removes fundamental freedoms—speech, press, worship—from the whims of electoral majorities. Courts have repeatedly recognized this “counter-majoritarian” role, yet Smith diminishes it by prioritizing majoritarian laws over minority religious exercise.
A better path: workable religious exemptions
In 2025, the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor signaled a corrective: parents likely to succeed when schools rescinded religious opt-outs from parts of an elementary curriculum. The Court recognized that narrowly tailored exemptions can protect conscience without chaos. AHJC points to Mahmoud as evidence that exemptions are practical and vital—especially for minority traditions.
The brief also notes that religious exemptions to vaccination rules are widely workable—available in 46 states—and that courts have revived claims by believers whose employment or education was conditioned on vaccination contrary to faith, confirming the need for individualized accommodation.
AHJC’s position
AHJC urges the Court to grant review and recalibrate Free Exercise doctrine so that neutral, broad laws don’t erase minority faiths’ practices. The Constitution should protect small communities as robustly as large ones—without forcing believers to choose between faith and civic life.