Fairley v. Lorain Cty. Probate Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding “that the inclusion of a formal system of entirely 13 discretionary exceptions . . . renders the contractual non-discrimination requirement not 14 generally applicable”
• explaining that the government may not “prohibit[] religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way”
• explaining that allowing an official “sole discretion” to grant an exemption “renders a policy not generally applicable”
• explaining that a party’s religious beliefs were burdened where the party either had to comply with a government requirement that violated the party’s religious beliefs or seek a discretionary exemption from a government official
• striking down city actions that burdened religious freedom as not “generally applicable” because the decision-making official had “sole 9 discretion” to grant individual exemptions
• explaining “laws incidentally burdening religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause so long as they are neutral and generally applicable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).