Back in 1990, the Supreme Court decided that laws prohibiting use of the hallucinogenic drug peyote did not violate the freedom of religion of Native Americans who ingested it as part of their religious ceremonies. Many outside of the legal community thought this was the right result because of concerns that drug abusers might pretend to have religious beliefs in an attempt to circumvent bans on illegal drugs. But most religious freedom lawyers were very concerned about this case (Employment Division, Dept. of Human Services of Oregon v. Smith) because of the rationale the court used to justify its decision. In brief, the Court determined that as long as a law neutrally applies to everyone, the fact that it doesn’t make exceptions for religious people or churches doesn’t violate the Constitution – even though the law may prohibit them from doing something their religious beliefs require.

This rationale seems to work fine in extreme cases like use of illegal drugs or human sacrifice. But it would also allow local governments to prohibit use of wine for communion if alcohol consumption was outlawed in a particular town or county. A neutral law could even require a church to refrain from discriminating based on sex when hiring clergy members.

So when a Christian school in Redmond, Michigan fired a teacher who was a commissioned minister, the federal government sued the church. (You can learn more about the facts of the EEOC v. Hosanna-Tabor Church case here). Government lawyers argued that a Christian school is no different than any other community group like the Lions Club or Jaycees. And as long as laws prohibiting discrimination based on disability or some other protected class neutrally apply to everyone, the fact that the Christian school is also bound by them doesn’t violate that school’s religious freedom. The federal government relied on the Smith peyote case to support its position, and a court of appeals in Cincinnati agreed.

But the Supreme Court reversed that opinion in a remarkable 9-0 decision. It severely limited the holding in Smith and said that even a neutral law violates the religious freedom of a parochial school if it results in “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” Because the Christian school in that case treated its teachers as ministers responsible for the spiritual health of students, the government could not apply laws prohibiting discrimination to the school. Doing so would have affected the faith and mission of the church itself.

This is a very positive development for religious freedom and churches. Government officials have increasingly subjected churches and their various ministries such as schools, daycares, and homeless outreaches to more and more restrictions. They’ve attempted to enforce secular laws against churches in an effort to interfere with how they carry out their religious mission, who is responsible for doing so, and whom they will serve. For instance, a local government sued a religious homeless shelter in Idaho because it required those taking advantage of its free services to attend Bible studies and other religious activities. And New Jersey government officials are attempting force a church to allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “marriage” ceremonies.

Till now, government officials have relied on the Smith peyote case to support restriction of freedom because the laws they are enforcing neutrally apply to everyone. They can no longer do that now that the Supreme Court has handed down the Hosanna-Tabor decision. Any law that interferes with a church’s internal decisions about its faith and mission is unconstitutional as applied to that church. If your church is being subjected to enforcement of such a law, contact us here at the Alliance Defense Fund – 1-800-TellADF, or speakupmovement.org.

This post originally appeared here.