Which case involved the Santeria religion and applied strict scrutiny to free exercise claims?

• A. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)
• B. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• C. Engel v. Vitale (1962)
• D. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Answer: (A)

When the government targets religious practice, courts apply strict scrutiny to determine if that burden on religion serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, the city adopted ordinances aimed at Santería rites—most notably ritual animal sacrifices—and enforced them in a way that singled out that faith. Although the laws were framed as neutral, their structure, history, and selective enforcement showed they were not neutral or generally applicable. The Supreme Court held that for Free Exercise claims, targeting a specific religion triggers strict scrutiny, and the city could not justify the restrictions with a compelling interest. As a result, the ordinances failed under that rigorous standard.

The other cases involve the Establishment Clause or school prayer rather than targeted free-exercise scrutiny of a religious practice, so they don’t fit the scenario described. Lemon deals with a three-part test for establishment concerns, while Engel and Abington address state-sponsored prayer in public schools.