It’s 1987 in Hialeah, Florida. A group of practitioners of the Santería religion, organized as the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, announces plans to open a house of worship, a school, and a cultural center. You’d think in a country founded on religious freedom, this wouldn't be a huge deal. But the local community freaked out. The reason? Animal sacrifice.
Santería isn't some underground cult from a horror movie; it’s a syncretic religion merging West African Yoruba beliefs with Roman Catholicism. Central to their devotion is the ritual sacrifice of animals—chickens, goats, sheep—which are usually eaten afterward. When the city council in Hialeah caught wind of the church’s plans, they didn't just express concern. They scrambled. They held emergency sessions and passed a series of ordinances that, on the surface, looked like they were about public health and animal cruelty.
But they weren't. They were targeted.
That’s basically how we ended up with Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah, a 1993 Supreme Court case that remains the "gold standard" for protecting religious minorities from "clever" politicians.
The "Smell Test" of Religious Bigotry
The Hialeah city council tried to be slick. They didn't pass a law saying "Santería is illegal." Instead, they used words like "sacrifice" and "ritual," while carefully exempting almost every other kind of animal killing. You could kill a deer for sport. You could kill a cow for a Big Mac. You could even kill a pest in your house. But if you killed an animal for a religious reason? Straight to jail.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, saw right through it.
💡 You might also like: Passive Resistance Explained: Why It Is Way More Than Just Standing Still
The legal principle at play here is "neutrality and general applicability." It’s a bit of a mouthful, honestly. Basically, if a law is going to restrict your religion, it has to apply to everyone equally and it can't be designed specifically to stomp on a certain faith. The Hialeah ordinances failed this "smell test" miserably.
Kennedy noted that the laws were "gerrymandered" to target Santería. The record of the city council meetings was embarrassing. Council members spoke about the practice being "abominable" and "contrary to everything this country stands for." One councilman even asked, "What can be done to prevent this church from opening?" When you say the quiet part out loud in a government meeting, the Supreme Court usually notices.
Why This Case Still Matters in 2026
You might think this is a dusty old case about a niche religion, but it’s the legal shield for everyone.
Think about it. If the government can ban a specific ritual because they find it "gross" or "weird," where does it stop? Can they ban Kosher slaughter because they don't like the method? Can they ban communion wine in a dry county? Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah says no. It established that if a law isn't "neutral," the government has to meet something called "strict scrutiny."
Strict scrutiny is the highest hurdle in American law. To pass it, the government has to prove they have a "compelling interest" and that they are using the "least restrictive means" possible. Hialeah couldn't do that. If they were really worried about public health (like disposing of carcasses), they could have passed a law about trash pickup. They didn't need to ban the religion itself.
📖 Related: What Really Happened With the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz
The Smith Case Contrast
To really get why the Lukumi case was such a win, you have to look at what happened three years earlier in Employment Division v. Smith. In that case, the Court ruled against two Native Americans who were fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The Court said because the drug law was "neutral" (it applied to everyone, not just Native Americans), it didn't violate the First Amendment.
Practitioners of minority faiths were terrified. It felt like the Free Exercise Clause was dead.
Then came the Hialeah case. It drew a line in the sand. It said: "Okay, you can have neutral laws that accidentally hurt religions, but you absolutely cannot hunt them down on purpose." It gave the Free Exercise Clause its teeth back.
Breaking Down the Ordinances
The city of Hialeah passed four different resolutions. It was a total overkill.
- Resolution 87-66: Publicly announced the city’s opposition to ritual sacrifices as being against the community's "public morals."
- Ordinance 87-40: Prohibited "sacrifices" but specifically defined them in a way that excluded commercial slaughterhouses.
- Ordinance 87-52: Defined "sacrifice" as the killing of an animal in a ritual not intended for primary consumption. Santería practitioners usually eat the animal, but the city argued the purpose was the ritual, not the meal.
- Ordinance 87-72: Made it illegal to "slaughter" any animal if the person wasn't a licensed food processor.
If you look at these together, it’s a map of exclusion. They were trying to trap the church in a maze of definitions. The Court called this out as "religious gerrymandering." It’s a great term. It means drawing the lines of a law so specifically that it only catches the people you don't like.
👉 See also: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
The Nuance: It’s Not a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card
Don't get it twisted. This case doesn't mean you can do literally anything in the name of God.
If a law is truly neutral—meaning it applies to everyone and wasn't made to target you—you still have to follow it. If the city of Hialeah had passed a law saying "No one can keep livestock in a residential zone for any reason," and they applied it to pet goats, farmers, and the church equally, the church might have lost.
The "Hialeah Standard" only protects you when the government is being a bully.
Actionable Insights for Religious Freedom
If you're part of a community or organization that feels targeted by local zoning laws or "health" ordinances, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah case is your primary weapon. Here is what you need to look for:
- Exemptions for others: Does the law ban your activity but allow similar activities for secular reasons? If a city bans "outdoor gatherings" for religious groups but allows "community festivals," that’s a red flag.
- Legislative History: What did the politicians say in the meetings? Minutes from city hall are public record. If they expressed animus or specifically named your group, the law is likely unconstitutional.
- Under-inclusiveness: If a law says it’s for "public safety" but only addresses a tiny sliver of that safety concern (the part involving your religion), it’s not a neutral law.
The legacy of this case is that the government must remain "religiously neutral." They can't play favorites, and more importantly, they can't play "un-favorites."
To protect your own rights, keep records of how local laws are applied. If you see a pattern where secular groups get a pass while your group gets a ticket, you're looking at a Lukumi violation. Consult with a First Amendment attorney immediately if you notice "gerrymandered" ordinances being drafted in your town. Understanding these nuances isn't just for lawyers; it’s for anyone who wants to ensure that the "free exercise" of religion remains more than just words on a page.
Next Steps for Research:
- Review the official Supreme Court Opinion (508 U.S. 520) to see Justice Kennedy's specific language on "religious gerrymandering."
- Compare this ruling to Tandon v. Newsom (2021), which expanded these protections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Audit your local city ordinances for any "special" restrictions on houses of worship that don't apply to nearby businesses.