Walz v. Tax Comm'n,
397 U.S. 664 (upholding property tax exemption for religious organizations); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos,
483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding Civil Rights Act exemption allowing religious institutions to restrict hiring to members of religion); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) (upholding a provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 that prohibits governments from imposing a “substantial burden on the religious exercise” of an institutionalized person unless the burden furthers a “compelling governmental interest” and is the "least restrictive means of achieving that interest"); Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 724 (2005) (quoting Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos,
483 U.S. 327,
338 (1987)); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,
508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law aimed at restricting ritual of a single religious group);
Everson v. Board of Education,
330 U.S. 1,
63
Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296 (1940)
Zorach v. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306,
317 (1952)
Larson v. Valente,
456 U.S. 228 (1982)
Although the solicitation cases have generally been decided under the free exercise or free speech clauses,205 in one instance the Court, intertwining establishment and free exercise principles, voided a provision in a state charitable solicitations law that required only those religious organizations that received less than half their total contributions from members or affiliated organizations to comply with the registration and reporting sections of the law.206 Applying strict scrutiny equal protection principles, the Court held that by distinguishing between older, well-established churches that had strong membership financial support and newer bodies lacking a contributing constituency or that may favor public solicitation over general reliance on financial support from the members, the statute granted denominational preference forbidden by the Establishment Clause.
