Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was the first Supreme Court decision to interpret the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. A unanimous Court upheld the bigamy conviction of George Reynolds, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and drew a line that still governs religious liberty law: the government cannot regulate what you believe, but it can regulate what you do, even when your conduct is driven by sincere religious conviction.
Who George Reynolds Was and What He Was Charged With
Reynolds was a private secretary to Brigham Young and a practicing Latter-day Saint who had taken a second wife. Federal authorities in the Utah Territory indicted him under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, which made it a crime for anyone already married to marry again in a federal territory. Conviction carried a fine of up to $500 and up to five years in prison.1B. H. Roberts Foundation. Text of the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act
The District Court for the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Utah convicted him and sentenced him to two years of hard labor and a $500 fine.2Justia. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) The Utah Territorial Supreme Court affirmed. Reynolds took the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Constitutional Question
Reynolds argued that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment shielded him from prosecution. Church doctrine at the time treated plural marriage as a religious duty tied to spiritual salvation. Punishing him for obeying that duty, his lawyers said, was exactly what the First Amendment forbade.
The argument, if accepted, would have swept far past polygamy. Any person facing any criminal charge could claim a religious motive and demand an exemption. The Court had to decide whether sincere religious belief could override an otherwise valid criminal statute.
What the Court Held
Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for a unanimous Court, said no. Congress was stripped of all power over religious opinion, but it kept full authority to reach conduct that violated social duties or threatened public order.2Justia. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Waite drew on Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom and on Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, which described a “wall of separation between church and state.” Both, in the Court’s reading, protected belief absolutely and left conduct open to regulation.
The practical concern drove the holding. If religious conviction could excuse criminal acts, every citizen would become “a law unto himself” and government “could exist only in name.”2Justia. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Waite pushed the logic to its edge: on Reynolds’ theory, even a person who practiced human sacrifice could claim constitutional cover. The rule that emerged was narrow and firm. Religious belief cannot justify a criminal act. When Reynolds married his second wife, he was presumed to have intended the consequences, and the marriage itself was the crime.
The Outcome
The Court affirmed the conviction. Reynolds’ sentence of two years at hard labor and a $500 fine stood.3Oyez. Reynolds v. United States The decision confirmed federal authority to regulate marriage in the territories and cleared the way for tougher enforcement against plural marriage in Utah in the years that followed.
Why Reynolds Still Matters
The belief-conduct distinction controlled Free Exercise cases for close to a century. A law that targeted belief was unconstitutional. A law that regulated conduct was generally fine, even if the conduct was religious. That framework gave the government a wide field.
Sherbert v. Verner Softens the Rule
In 1963, the Court shifted course. Sherbert v. Verner involved a Seventh-day Adventist denied unemployment benefits after she refused to work on Saturdays. The Court held that the state could not burden her religious exercise unless it showed a compelling interest for doing so.4Justia. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) That test was much harder for the government to meet than Reynolds required, and it opened space for religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.
Employment Division v. Smith Brings Reynolds Back
In 1990, the Court pulled back. Employment Division v. Smith involved two members of a Native American church fired and denied benefits after using peyote in a religious ceremony. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion returned to something close to the Reynolds rule: a neutral, generally applicable law does not violate the Free Exercise Clause even when it burdens religious practice. Scalia warned that a broad exemption regime would let people cite faith to avoid paying taxes, take multiple wives, or hire child workers.5Justia. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Congress Responds With RFRA
The backlash to Smith was strong. In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the federal government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it can show a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 2000bb – Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes The Supreme Court later held that RFRA reaches only federal action, not state or local governments, but it remains the operative standard for federal religious liberty disputes.
Fulton and the Unresolved Question
The tension continues. In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021), the Court ruled that Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by requiring a Catholic foster care agency to certify same-sex couples when the city’s contract already allowed discretionary exceptions. Because the policy was not truly generally applicable, strict scrutiny applied and the city lost. Several justices called for Smith to be overruled, but the majority declined.7Supreme Court of the United States. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021) The question Reynolds first raised is still open at the edges: when does the right to practice your religion give way to the government’s power to write rules for everyone?