in closing, sotomayor reminded the court of its constitutional duty to uphold religious liberty and reject animus: when the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of disfavoring a particular religion, it violates that central establishment clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides." id. at 2436, quoting mccreary county v. american civil liberties union of ky., 545 u.s. 844, 860 (2005). through her invocation of lukumi and the broader constitutional principles it represents, sotomayor reaffirmed the enduring commitment to religious plurality and the vigilance required to guard against governmental overreach. justice sotomayor cited church of the lukumi babalu aye in her dissent in trump v. hawaii, 138 s. ct. 2392 (2018), as part of her broader argument that historical context, legislative purpose, and discriminatory intent must inform judicial scrutiny under the free exercise clause. the supreme court's decision in church of the lukumi babalu aye, inc. v. city of hialeah, 508 u.s. 520 (1993), offers a vital precedent in free exercise clause jurisprudence, especially in cases where facially neutral laws target religious practices. the case centers on the santeria religion, which practices animal sacrifice as a core ritual. the city of hialeah passed ordinances ostensibly targeting animal cruelty and public health, but the ordinances were found to be gerrymandered to suppress santeria religious practices. *-*-*
United States