Others have pointed out just how narrow this ruling is, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a later case to go the other way. For all the crowing about religious freedom, the simple fact is that the Establishment Clause has never been as strong as commonly suggested, and religious belief often must give way in favor of law. As the Supreme Court put it in 1879: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 166-167 (1879). More recently, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 882 (1990).Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.