Page:Spencer v. Nigrelli.pdf/11

 activity more favorably than religious exercise and discriminates on the basis of religion.” Dkt. 13-3, at 1. For this reason, and as set forth below, the houses of worship exclusion violates Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Free Exercise Clause “protects not only the right to harbor religious beliefs inwardly and secretly.” ''Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.'', 142 S.Ct. 2407, 2421 (2022). It also does “perhaps its most important work by protecting the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Under Supreme Court precedent, “a plaintiff bears certain burdens to demonstrate an infringement of his rights under the Free Exercise [Clause].” Id. If the plaintiff carries these burdens, “the focus then shifts to the defendant to show that its actions were nonetheless justified and tailored consistent with the demands of our case law.” Id.

Specifically, “a plaintiff may carry the burden of proving a free exercise violation” by “showing that a government entity has burdened his sincere religious practice pursuant to a policy that is not ‘neutral’ or ‘generally applicable.’” Id. at 2421–22 (Citation omitted). Should a plaintiff make such a showing, the Court must find a First Amendment violation “unless the government can satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ by demonstrating its course was justified by a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored in pursuit of that interest.” Id. at 2422 (quoting Church