Key Takeaways

1. Reynolds v. United States (1879) was the Supreme Court’s first major case interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, establishing that religious belief is protected, but religiously motivated actions may be regulated by law.
2. The Court unanimously upheld the federal ban on bigamy, ruling that religious duty is not a defense to criminal indictment, and that civil society cannot allow religious beliefs to justify violations of generally applicable laws.
3. Reynolds set a precedent for later cases balancing religious freedom against government interests, shaping the boundaries of religious liberty in American constitutional law.

Introduction

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), stands as a foundational Supreme Court decision shaping the interpretation of religious freedom under the United States Constitution. The case arose in the context of the federal government’s efforts to regulate the practice of polygamy, particularly among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in the Utah Territory. George Reynolds, a prominent member of the LDS Church, was prosecuted under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act for marrying a second wife, an act considered a religious duty by his faith.

Reynolds challenged his conviction, arguing that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protected his religiously motivated conduct. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, holding that while religious beliefs are absolutely protected, religiously motivated actions that violate the law are not. This decision established a critical distinction between belief and practice—a distinction that continues to influence the interpretation of the First Amendment today.

This guide provides a comprehensive analysis of Reynolds v. United States, exploring its background, legal reasoning, and enduring impact on American constitutional law.

Historical Background

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act

In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, a federal law criminalizing bigamy in U.S. territories. The Act was a response to growing concerns about the practice of polygamy, particularly among the LDS Church in Utah. The law made it illegal for any man to have more than one wife at a time and imposed fines and imprisonment for violations.

Despite the Act, the practice of polygamy continued openly in Utah. The LDS Church taught that plural marriage was a divine commandment, and many adherents, including church leaders, openly defied the law. Federal authorities faced challenges in enforcing the ban, leading to increased tension between the federal government and the Mormon community.

George Reynolds and the LDS Church

George Reynolds was a secretary to Brigham Young, the president of the LDS Church. In 1874, the church and Reynolds agreed to make him a test case to challenge the constitutionality of the Morrill Act. Reynolds married a second wife in accordance with church doctrine and was subsequently indicted for bigamy.

Reynolds’s defense centered on the argument that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protected his right to practice his religion, including the religiously motivated act of plural marriage.

The Legal and Social Climate

The late 19th century was a period of intense debate over the boundaries of religious liberty. The United States was grappling with how to reconcile the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom with the need to regulate conduct deemed harmful to public order and morality. The Reynolds case became a flashpoint for these debates, attracting national attention and setting the stage for a landmark Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court Case

Procedural History

After his conviction in a territorial court, Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court of the Utah Territory, which affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, presenting the justices with their first opportunity to interpret the Free Exercise Clause.

Legal Questions Presented

The central question before the Court was whether the federal government could criminalize a practice that was mandated by religious belief, or whether such a law violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom.

Specifically, the issues included:

• Does the First Amendment protect not only religious belief but also religiously motivated conduct?
• Can Congress prohibit practices deemed criminal, even if they are religiously motivated?
• Is religious duty a valid defense to a criminal indictment?

The Parties’ Arguments

Reynolds’s Argument:
Reynolds, through his attorneys, argued that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause protected not only religious beliefs but also religiously motivated actions. He contended that the practice of plural marriage was a fundamental tenet of his faith and that punishing him for following this religious duty violated his constitutional rights.

Government’s Argument:
The United States government countered that while the Constitution protects religious beliefs, it does not exempt individuals from compliance with laws that are neutral and generally applicable. The government argued that permitting religious beliefs to override the law would undermine the rule of law and create a system where each person could become a law unto themselves.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, upheld Reynolds’s conviction. The Court’s opinion can be read in full at Oyez and Justia.

The Court made several key findings:

1. Distinction Between Belief and Action:
   The Court drew a sharp distinction between religious belief, which is absolutely protected, and religiously motivated actions, which may be regulated. The justices held that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
2. No Religious Exemption for Criminal Laws:
   The Court reasoned that to permit religious beliefs to justify criminal conduct would “make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The justices cited the hypothetical example of human sacrifice, noting that such acts could not be permitted simply because they were religiously mandated.
3. Legitimate Government Interest:
   The Court found that the government had a legitimate interest in prohibiting bigamy, citing the long-standing tradition of monogamous marriage in Western society and the perceived harms of polygamy to public order and morality.

The Precedent Established

Reynolds v. United States established a foundational precedent: the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs absolutely, but not religiously motivated actions that violate generally applicable laws. This “belief-action” distinction would guide the Supreme Court’s approach to religious freedom for decades.

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

The Belief-Action Dichotomy

The Court’s distinction between belief and action was rooted in both historical practice and practical necessity. The justices recognized that while the government could not dictate what individuals believe, it had the authority to regulate conduct, even if that conduct was religiously motivated.

This approach has been both praised and criticized. Supporters argue that it preserves the rule of law and prevents abuses that could arise if religious beliefs were allowed to override legal obligations. Critics, however, contend that it unduly restricts religious liberty by failing to adequately protect religiously motivated practices.

The “Law of the Land” Principle

The Court emphasized the importance of the rule of law, warning that allowing religious exemptions to criminal laws would create chaos. The opinion stated: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

This principle has been cited in subsequent cases as a justification for limiting religious exemptions, particularly in cases involving public safety, order, and morality.

The Use of Historical and Comparative Analysis

The Court looked to history and comparative law, noting that polygamy had been prohibited in England and the United States for centuries. The justices argued that the practice was “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe” and that monogamous marriage was central to the social fabric.

This reliance on historical practice has been a recurring theme in Supreme Court jurisprudence, often used to justify restrictions on practices deemed contrary to American values or traditions.

Impact and Legacy

Immediate Aftermath

The Reynolds decision had an immediate impact on the LDS Church and the practice of polygamy in Utah. Federal authorities intensified their efforts to enforce anti-polygamy laws, leading to widespread prosecutions and significant social upheaval. The LDS Church ultimately abandoned the practice of plural marriage in 1890, in part due to legal and political pressure.

Influence on Later Supreme Court Cases

Reynolds established a framework for analyzing Free Exercise claims that persisted for decades. The belief-action distinction was applied in later cases, such as:

• Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890): Upheld laws denying voting rights to polygamists, reaffirming the principle that religious practices can be regulated.
• Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940): Incorporated the Free Exercise Clause against the states, while reaffirming that conduct may be regulated.
• Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990): Reaffirmed the principle that generally applicable laws may be enforced even if they burden religious practices, unless a law targets a specific religion.

Critiques and Reconsiderations

Over time, the Supreme Court has revisited the belief-action dichotomy, sometimes expanding protections for religiously motivated conduct. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Court held that laws burdening religious practices must be justified by a compelling government interest. However, the Smith decision in 1990 returned to the more restrictive approach first articulated in Reynolds.

Legal scholars continue to debate the proper balance between religious liberty and the needs of society. Some argue that Reynolds unduly restricts religious freedom, while others contend that it is necessary to prevent abuses and maintain the rule of law.

Continuing Relevance

Reynolds v. United States remains a touchstone in debates over religious liberty. The case is frequently cited in legal arguments and judicial opinions addressing the limits of religious freedom, particularly when religious practices conflict with laws promoting public safety, order, or morality.

For further reading and official sources, see:

• Oyez: Reynolds v. United States
• Justia: Reynolds v. United States
• First Amendment Encyclopedia: Reynolds v. United States
• Bill of Rights Institute: Reynolds v. United States (1879)

Broader Implications for Religious Liberty

The Free Exercise Clause in Modern Jurisprudence

The Free Exercise Clause continues to be a battleground for competing visions of religious liberty. Reynolds set the initial parameters, but later cases have refined and sometimes departed from its strict belief-action dichotomy.

Today, courts often apply a balancing test, weighing the government’s interest in enforcing a law against the burden imposed on religious exercise. However, the basic principle that religious beliefs do not provide a blanket exemption from generally applicable laws remains intact.

Legislative Responses

In response to Supreme Court decisions limiting religious exemptions, Congress has sometimes stepped in to provide greater protection for religious practices. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted in 1993, requires that laws substantially burdening religious exercise be justified by a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

RFRA was a direct response to the Smith decision, which reaffirmed the Reynolds precedent. However, RFRA applies only to federal laws, and its application to state laws was limited by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

Ongoing Debates

The tension between religious liberty and government regulation remains a live issue. Recent cases involving religious objections to vaccination mandates, contraception coverage, and anti-discrimination laws all grapple with the legacy of Reynolds and its progeny.

Legal scholars and advocates continue to debate whether the balance struck in Reynolds is appropriate, or whether greater accommodation for religious practices is warranted in a pluralistic society.

Conclusion

Reynolds v. United States is a cornerstone of American constitutional law, setting the stage for more than a century of debate over the meaning of religious freedom. By drawing a distinction between protected beliefs and regulable actions, the Supreme Court established a framework that continues to influence legal arguments and judicial decisions.

While the specifics of the case—bigamy and polygamy in 19th-century Utah—may seem distant, the underlying principles remain highly relevant. The challenge of balancing religious liberty with the rule of law is as pressing today as it was in 1879.

For attorneys and legal researchers seeking to understand the origins and evolution of the Free Exercise Clause, Reynolds is an essential starting point. For more in-depth research and analysis, visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer

This guide provides a general overview of Reynolds v. United States and its legal significance. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The law is complex and subject to change; for specific legal questions or issues, consult a qualified attorney or refer to official court documents and statutes.