Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v.

City of Hialeah
(Killing In The Name Of)
508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Kennedy
Summary:
Three ordinances were passed in the City of Hialeah prohibiting animal sacrifices to
be done in the said jurisdiction. The Church of the Lukumi, Santerian in religion in
essence, a mix of African and Roman Catholicism, practices the act of animal
sacrifices to preserve and prolong the life and Earthly existence of essential spirits,
was starting to spread its influence and establish its churches in the city of Hialeah.
Unfortunately, since the heads of the city knew of such action, they passed the said
ordinances to prevent the said church from practicing animal sacrifices in their city,
with a penalty of no more than $500 or detention for not more than 60 days, or a
combination of both. The said ordinances were deemed unlawful by the courts due
to their restriction of the rights stipulated by law of Religious sects and acts, more
specifically by the Church of the Lukumi. There wasn't any lawful distinction and
substantial reason to restrict the said practice, which was beyond the restriction of
the said practice by virtue of the three ordinances by the city of Hialeah. Therefore,
the judgement bestowed upon the case of the Church of Lukumi against the said
ordinances was deemed unconstitutional (lower courts ruled otherwise and was
reversed).
Facts:
The City of Hialeah, Florida, upon finding out that the Church of the Lukumi Babalu
Aye was on its way to establish and spread its teachings to the said City passed
Three Ordinances. The said Church was known to widely practice the act of
Santoria. Santoria is a religious practice that involves the execution of animals for
sacrifice. The practice was said to pay homage, give power, and to restore the
spirits that were well respected in their religion. The City of Hialeah then went into
an emergency meeting upon getting notice of the said plan of the Church to spread
and establish its teachings the said city. The Church, being restricted by the
Ordinances passed by the city, filed a case in the lower courts to deem the
ordinances unconstitutional. The lower courts ruled in favor of the constitutionality
of the ordinances by virtue of a substantial issue that must be addressed. However,
when the case reached the Supreme court of the United States, the decision was
reversed.
Issue:
WON the ordinances passed by the city was unconstitutional?

Held:
Yes, the ordinances passed by the city was unconstitutional and in breach of the
rights vested by law upon such religious congregations.
Resolution 87-66, which noted city residents' "concern" over religious practices
inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety, and declared the city's
"commitment" to prohibiting such practices;
Ordinance 87-40, which incorporates the Florida animal cruelty laws and broadly
punishes "whoever . . . unnecessarily or cruelly . . . kills any animal," and has been
interpreted to reach killings for religious reasons;
Ordinance 87-52, which defines "sacrifice" as "to unnecessarily kill an animal in a
ritual not for the primary purpose of food consumption," and prohibits the
"possession, sacrifice, or slaughter" of an animal if it is killed in "any type of ritual"
and there is an intent to use it for food, but exempts "any licensed food
establishment" if the killing is otherwise permitted by law;
The said laws also prohibits slaughter outside of areas zoned for slaughterhouses,
but includes an exemption for "small numbers of hogs and/or cattle" when
exempted by state law.
The above mentioned laws were deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that the
Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some religious
beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious
reasons. The laws seek to attack Santoria due its disregard against the diligence in
line with animal cruelty. The purpose is not justified by the means of restricting the
religious practice due to the said intent. The laws are not neutral, but have as their
object the suppression of Santeria's central element, animal sacrifice.
Each of the ordinances pursues the city's governmental interests only against
conduct motivated by religious belief, and thereby violates the requirement that
laws burdening religious practice must be of general applicability. Ordinances 87-40,
87-52, and 87-71 are substantially underinclusive with regard to the city's interest
in preventing cruelty to animals, since they are drafted with care to forbid few
animal killings but those occasioned by religious sacrifice, while many types of
animal deaths or kills for nonreligious reasons are either not prohibited or approved
by express provision.