Which case holds that the Constitution protects the right to refuse to violate one’s religious beliefs in the context of criminal law?

• A. Reynolds v. United States (1879)
• B. Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
• C. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
• D. Engel v. Vitale (1962)

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is how the Free Exercise Clause interacts with criminal law: the Constitution protects holding religious beliefs, but it does not automatically grant a defense to criminal conduct based on those beliefs.

Reynolds v. United States (1879) is the best fit because it establishes that a person may hold religious beliefs freely, but those beliefs do not excuse illegal acts. The Court held that a federal statute against bigamy was valid even though it conflicted with the practice some adherents claimed was religious duty. In other words, the government can regulate conduct even if that conduct is tied to religious beliefs, so there isn’t a blanket right to refuse to violate criminal law on religious grounds.

The other cases focus on different issues. Cantwell v. Connecticut concerns protection for religious proselytizing and the broader protection of Free Exercise against state actions that target religion. Minersville School District v. Gobitis dealt with mandatory patriotic salutes in schools (and was later changed by Barnette), not about exemptions from criminal law. Engel v. Vitale addresses school-sponsored prayer and the Establishment Clause, not religious exemptions from criminal statutes.