A public high school enacted a policy requiring all students to attend a mid-week assembly featuring inspirational talks by local community leaders. A student who practices a religion that prohibits attending gatherings during that time of the week due to religious observances refused to attend and was suspended for non-compliance. The student sued the school district, claiming the policy violated her constitutional rights. What is the most likely constitutional argument the student would use under the Free Exercise Clause?
The policy violates the Establishment Clause by endorsing a particular type of religious practice.
The policy violates the student's freedom of speech by compelling attendance at assemblies.
The policy violates the Due Process Clause as it deprives the student of her right to education without fair notice.
The policy violates the Free Exercise Clause as it substantially burdens the student's religious practice without a compelling justification.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment ensures individuals the right to practice their religion freely without unjustified government interference. Government laws or policies that substantially burden religious practices must demonstrate they advance a compelling government interest and are executed in the least restrictive way. In this case, the policy mandating attendance at assemblies interferes directly with the student's religious observances. The school district would need to show a compelling interest in imposing this requirement and that no less restrictive alternatives exist. Similar answers may suggest legal arguments grounded in other constitutional principles like due process or free speech, but these do not directly address the specific burden on religion caused by the assembly requirement.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the Free Exercise Clause?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes a 'substantial burden' on religious practice?