Key Takeaways
- Reynolds v. United States (1878) was the first Supreme Court case to interpret the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, establishing that religious beliefs are protected but religiously motivated actions can be restricted by law.
- The Court drew a critical distinction between religious belief and practice, holding that while Congress cannot regulate beliefs, it can regulate practices deemed harmful or contrary to public policy—even if those practices are religiously motivated.
- This decision set a precedent for future cases involving religious liberty and government regulation, reinforcing the authority of the government to limit religious practices that conflict with federal law or societal interests.
Introduction
Reynolds v. United States is a foundational case in American constitutional law, particularly concerning the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Decided in 1878, this Supreme Court case addressed whether federal law could criminalize religiously motivated conduct—specifically, the practice of bigamy—without violating constitutional protections for religious freedom. The ruling established a crucial legal distinction between the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on those beliefs, a principle that continues to influence religious liberty jurisprudence today.
For more on the case, see Oyez, Wikipedia, and Justia.
Historical and Legal Background
The Context of 19th Century America
In the mid-1800s, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), also known as the Mormon Church, practiced polygamy as a tenet of faith. This practice was controversial and met with strong opposition from much of American society. The U.S. Congress responded by passing the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, which criminalized bigamy in U.S. territories. Enforcement of this law became a flashpoint in the Utah Territory, where the LDS Church was headquartered.
The Parties and the Charges
George Reynolds, a member of the LDS Church and personal secretary to church president Brigham Young, was charged with bigamy after marrying a second wife while still married to his first. Reynolds was prosecuted under the federal anti-bigamy statute, and his conviction was intended as a test case to challenge the law’s constitutionality on religious grounds.
Legal Issues Presented
The central legal question was whether the federal government could prohibit a religiously motivated practice—here, polygamy—without violating the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, upheld Reynolds’ conviction. The Court’s opinion can be accessed in full at Justia.
Belief vs. Practice
The Court made a pivotal distinction between religious belief and religious practice. According to the Court, the First Amendment absolutely protects religious beliefs—no law can dictate what a person must believe. However, when it comes to religiously motivated actions, the government may regulate or prohibit conduct if it is contrary to public policy or deemed harmful to society.
“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.”
The “Parade of Horribles” Argument
The Court reasoned that allowing religious belief to excuse individuals from compliance with the law would lead to anarchy. Anyone could claim exemption from any law by citing religious motivation. The opinion cited historical examples, such as religiously motivated human sacrifice, to illustrate the dangers of such a policy.
Public Policy and Social Order
The Court emphasized that civil society must maintain the power to regulate actions that threaten the public good, even if those actions are religiously motivated. The regulation of bigamy, the Court held, was within the government’s authority to protect the institution of marriage and the social order.
The Holding
The Supreme Court held that the federal anti-bigamy statute did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Reynolds’ conviction was affirmed, and the principle was established that religiously motivated conduct could be subject to regulation.
Legal Principles Established
The Belief-Action Distinction
The belief-action distinction is the most significant legacy of Reynolds v. United States. The Court ruled that while the government cannot regulate what people believe, it can regulate conduct—even if that conduct is religiously motivated—if it conflicts with valid laws.
This principle has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and remains a foundational aspect of First Amendment jurisprudence.
Government’s Power to Regulate Harmful Practices
The decision confirmed that the government has the authority to restrict practices considered harmful or contrary to public policy, even when those practices are rooted in religious belief. The Court’s reasoning has influenced later cases involving issues like drug use, child labor, and education.
Precedent for Later Free Exercise Cases
Reynolds set the stage for later cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause, including:
- Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940): Incorporated the Free Exercise Clause against the states.
- Sherbert v. Verner (1963): Introduced the “compelling interest” test.
- Employment Division v. Smith (1990): Reaffirmed the principle that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religious practice.
Impact and Legacy
On Religious Liberty
Reynolds v. United States is often cited as the first major test of religious liberty in the United States. The case established that religious liberty is not absolute and that the government may regulate or prohibit religiously motivated conduct if it conflicts with valid laws enacted for the public good.
On the LDS Church and Polygamy
The decision had a profound impact on the LDS Church and its practice of polygamy. In the wake of Reynolds and subsequent legal pressure, the church officially renounced polygamy in 1890. The case marked a turning point in the relationship between the federal government and the LDS Church, signaling that religious groups would not be exempt from generally applicable laws.
On Later Jurisprudence
The belief-action distinction continues to shape the Supreme Court’s approach to religious liberty. While later cases have refined and sometimes limited the scope of Reynolds, the basic principle that religiously motivated conduct can be regulated remains intact.
Criticisms and Controversy
Reynolds has been criticized for its narrow reading of the Free Exercise Clause and for failing to adequately protect minority religious practices. Critics argue that the decision allows the government too much leeway to restrict religious conduct, especially when such conduct is unpopular or misunderstood by the majority.
Detailed Analysis of the Court’s Opinion
Textual and Historical Approach
The Court’s opinion in Reynolds relied heavily on historical sources, including the writings of Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Court interpreted the First Amendment’s protection of religious exercise as prohibiting laws targeting religious belief, but not necessarily laws that incidentally burden religious practice.
The “Parade of Horribles”
The Court’s use of extreme hypothetical examples—such as human sacrifice or religiously motivated criminal acts—was intended to demonstrate the impracticality of exempting all religiously motivated conduct from regulation. The opinion warned that such a policy would undermine the rule of law.
The Role of Public Policy
The Court emphasized the importance of public policy in determining the limits of religious liberty. Practices that threaten the public welfare, such as bigamy, can be prohibited even if they are religiously motivated.
Application to George Reynolds
The Court found that Reynolds’ religious motivation for practicing polygamy did not exempt him from prosecution under the federal anti-bigamy statute. The law was deemed neutral and generally applicable, and its enforcement was justified by the government’s interest in regulating marriage and protecting social order.
The Aftermath and Subsequent Developments
Changes in the Law
Following Reynolds, Congress enacted additional laws targeting polygamy and related practices in the territories. The Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) further strengthened the federal government’s ability to prosecute and punish polygamy.
The LDS Church’s Response
Under increasing legal and social pressure, the LDS Church issued the 1890 Manifesto, officially ending the practice of polygamy among its members. This marked a significant shift in church policy and allowed Utah to achieve statehood in 1896.
Influence on Modern Free Exercise Jurisprudence
Reynolds remains a touchstone in debates over the limits of religious liberty. The belief-action distinction has been cited in cases involving issues such as:
- Religious use of controlled substances (e.g., Employment Division v. Smith)
- Religious objections to military service
- Religious practices in prisons and schools
While the Supreme Court has at times expanded and at other times contracted the scope of the Free Exercise Clause, the core principle from Reynolds—that religious conduct can be regulated if it conflicts with valid law—remains influential.
Reynolds in Modern Perspective
The “Compelling Interest” Test
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court developed the “compelling interest” test for evaluating laws that burden religious practice. Under this test, the government must show that a law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. While this approach offers more protection for religious conduct than Reynolds, the belief-action distinction remains a foundational principle.
Employment Division v. Smith and Legislative Response
In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court returned to the Reynolds approach, holding that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they burden religious practice. This decision led Congress to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which restored the compelling interest test for federal laws.
Ongoing Debates
Reynolds continues to be relevant in contemporary debates over religious liberty, including issues such as:
- Same-sex marriage and religious objections
- Religious exemptions from vaccination requirements
- Religious dress and grooming in the workplace
The balance between religious liberty and the government’s interest in regulating conduct remains a central challenge in constitutional law.
Practical Implications for Attorneys and Legal Researchers
Understanding the Precedent
Attorneys and legal researchers must understand the belief-action distinction established in Reynolds when analyzing cases involving religious liberty. The case remains an essential starting point for any research on the Free Exercise Clause.
Applying Reynolds to Modern Issues
Modern courts continue to cite Reynolds when evaluating claims for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. Understanding the history and reasoning of Reynolds is crucial for crafting arguments and anticipating how courts may rule in cases involving religious liberty.
Using Official Sources
For more detailed information, review the following official sources:
Conclusion
Reynolds v. United States stands as a landmark in the history of American constitutional law. By upholding the federal prohibition on bigamy, the Supreme Court established the critical distinction between religious belief and religiously motivated conduct. This principle continues to shape the contours of religious liberty in the United States, influencing debates and decisions on the limits of religious freedom. For attorneys and legal researchers, understanding Reynolds is essential for navigating the complex interplay between faith and law.
For more in-depth legal research tools and analysis, visit Counsel Stack.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Reynolds v. United States and its legal significance. It is not intended as legal advice. The law is complex and subject to change; nuances and exceptions may apply to specific cases. For professional legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney or utilize comprehensive legal research services.
