Government burdens on religious exercise are assessed by first asking whether the law is neutral and generally applicable.
Neutral and generally applicable laws are reviewed for a rational basis even where they incidentally burden religious practice.
Laws that are not neutral, or not generally applicable, face strict scrutiny. A law is not generally applicable where it provides a mechanism for individualised exemptions, or where it treats comparable secular activity more favourably. That second route has become the principal analytical path.
Comparability is assessed against the asserted government interest: if secular activity posing a similar risk to that interest is permitted, the religious exclusion is suspect.
Targeting. Evidence of hostility toward religion in the legislative record, or in the statements of adjudicators, invalidates the action independently.
Statutory protections. Federal and state religious freedom statutes impose a compelling interest and least restrictive means test on burdens they cover, which is more protective than the constitutional baseline for neutral laws.
Church autonomy. Courts do not adjudicate religious doctrine, and the ministerial exception bars employment claims by employees who carry out important religious functions.
Municipal application. Occupancy limits, gathering restrictions, zoning and licensing decisions are the recurring settings.