Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Reynolds is a very important case in the history of religious freedom. While the standards it set down have certainly seen revision over the past years, it was the first Supreme Court case that officially ruled that the free exercise of religion is not unlimited.

Case Facts
A Mormon follower, George Reynolds, married his second wife and was charged with violating a Congressional law applied to the Utah territory. Reynolds argued that he was following his faith and he was therefore protected under the free exercise clause.

Legal Question
Does the free exercise clause in the First Amendment protect polygamy?

Ruling
No. In a unanimous decision the Court ruled that while Congress may not legislate a person's opinion, Congress may legislate action.

Chief Justice Waite wrote the majority opinion and emphasized that the Constitution does not define religion. However, the Court suggests that we must look at the "history of the times in the midst of when the provision was adopted." Waite argues that when the First Amendment was passed, it was based on the notion that religion was a relationship solely between man and god. Legislative action reaches action, not opinion. "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

The Court then proceeds to demonize the practice of polygamy. Waite writes that it has always been seen as an unclean practice in the United States and the second marriage has always been void in the earliest recorded cases of English common law. In either case, the practice has been considered an offense against society. Furthermore, Waite calls attention to the fact that no state in the union has ever sanctioned polygamy, and therefore there is no way that the Constitution could possibly protect this behavior. He essentially established that if it was not an accepted religious practice when the Constitution was ratified, it does not enjoy the protection of the Constitution.

Ultimately, the Court states that the law passed by Congress is designed to maintain civility in the United States. "Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?" In the end, the law is not subservient to religious belief.