3
The Supreme Court on Santería - 4
4
Text of the court ruling Commentary on the text
3[508 U.S. 520, 522]

[Opinions, Briefs, Arguments]

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, and IV, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II-A-1 and II-A-3, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part II-A-2, in which STEVENS, J., joined.  SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post p. 557. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post p. 559.  BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. 577. 

[508 U.S. 520, 523]
    Douglas Laycock argued the cause for petitioners [Petitioners' Brief, Petitioners' Reply Brief, Oral Arguments]. With him on the briefs were Jeanne Baker, Steven R. Shapiro, and Jorge A. Duarte.

    Richard G. Garrett argued the cause for respondent [Brief for Respondent, Oral Arguments]. With him on the brief were Stuart H. Singer and Steven M. Goldsmith.*14



*1  Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al. by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., Steven T. McFarland, Bradley P. Jacob, and Michael W. McConnell; for the Council on Religious Freedom by Lee Boothby, Robert W. Nixon, Walter E. Carson, and Rolland Truman; and for the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead.

     Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the International Society for Animal Rights et al. by Henry Mark Holzer; for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals et al. by Gary L. Francione; and for the Washington Humane Society by E. Edward Bruce.

     Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the United States Catholic Conference by Mark E. Chopko and John A. Liekweg; for the Humane Society of the United States et al. by Peter Buscemi, Maureen Beyers, Roger A. Kindler, and Eugene Underwood, Jr.; for the Institute for Animal Rights Law et al. by Henry Mark Holzer; and for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs by Nathan Lewin and Dennis Rapps.  4


 
 

  Although all of the Supreme Court justices agreed that the Hialeah Ordinances were unconstitutional, they did not agree in every particular.  Three judges - Scalia, Souter and Blackmun - described their differences in their opinions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  Fascinating insights into the case are provided by the Church's attorney, Douglas Laycock.  They can be read in his Petitioners' Brief, Petitioners' Reply Brief, and his Oral Arguments.

  Legal arguments of the City of Hialeah also give insight into contemporary religious prejudice in the United States.  Richard G. Garrett argued for the City.  See his Brief for Respondent and Oral Arguments.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  Finally, many other organizations sought to influence the opinion of the Court.  One "Friends of the Court" brief is available here.  Written by Gary L. Francione, it represents the view of an organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
.

Title Page
Syllabus
Synopsis
Opinions, Briefs, Arguments
I  Overview
I-A  Santería Religion
I-B  Case History
II  Free Exercise Clause
II-A  Neutrality
II-A-1  Compelling Interest
II-A-2  Equal Protection
II-A-3  Summary
II-B  General Applicability
III  Ordinances Fail Scrutiny
IV  Conclusion
Web View
(Access to all screens)