Supreme Court to Weigh Law Against Sacrificial Rites : Religion: Justices will decide if government can outlaw ritualistic animal killings. Church advocates say a Florida ordinance limits a basic freedom.

In an important test of the limits of religious freedom, the Supreme Court said Monday that it would decide whether the government can outlaw the ritualistic sacrifice of animals, even though the practice is an essential aspect of some religions.

In this instance, the court will rule on whether the city of Hialeah, Fla., violated the constitutional rights of local residents who regularly kill chickens, pigeons, ducks, goats and other animals during religious ceremonies.

The Miami suburb is home to thousands of devotees of religions known as Santeria and Yoruba, which practice animal sacrifice. In response to complaints about cruelty to animals and the unsanitary disposal of carcasses, the City Council in 1987 enacted a criminal ordinance forbidding “public ritualistic animal sacrifices.”

However, as lawyers for the Santeria adherents noted, hunters and fishermen in the area can catch and kill animals without penalty.

After losing in the lower courts, the attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Hialeah law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion.”

The case, which will be heard in the fall, forces the justices to reconsider a much-disputed area of constitutional law involving religion.

Until 1990, the Supreme Court had said that government may not limit a religious practice unless it has the most “compelling” reason, such as to protect the life of a seriously ill child. Under this doctrine, religious practices and rituals were given an exemption from customary laws. For example, Christian churches are permitted to give children communal wine, despite laws against serving alcohol to minors.

But two years ago, in a 5-4 ruling, the high court sharply altered that doctrine. Subsequently, the court said, it would uphold “neutral, generally applicable” laws, even if they limit a religious practice. In that case, Employment Division vs. Smith, the justices said that Oregon officials could fire a Native American drug counselor who admitted using peyote during a religious ceremony.

Officials of scores of religious denominations, both large and small, protested that ruling and urged Congress to intervene. In the House, 165 members have co-sponsored legislation to reverse the high court ruling and reinstate the earlier standard for religious freedom.

Attorneys who specialize in religious freedom said that the Hialeah case goes even further because city officials made no pretense that their 1987 law was “neutral and generally applicable.”

“This is a case about discrimination. This was clearly an attempt to suppress an unpopular religion,” said Prof. Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas School of Law. Laycock filed an appeal for the Santeria adherents.

“Hialeah forbids the religious sacrifice of animals; it does not forbid the killing of animals for food, for recreation or for human convenience,” Laycock said in his appeal to the high court.

A number of major religious groups filed briefs supporting the appeal.

“You have to look beyond the dead chickens in this case. This is about how we protect minority religions in this society,” said Oliver Thomas, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee. “In Hialeah, you can kill animals for almost any reason, unless you are motivated by religion.”

City officials contended that they have valid justification for the law. The animals used in the sacrifices are kept in “extremely overcrowded and filthy conditions.” Furthermore, they “suffer intensely” when their throats are cut, the officials maintained. The city also contended that the sacrifices “create a health hazard, because the remains attract flies, rats” and other disease carriers.

Based on those justifications, a federal judge in Miami and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld the city’s law.

In a brief order, the high court said Monday that it would review the case (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. City of Hialeah, 91-948).

In other actions, the court:

--Let stand a $22,710 judgment against a county official who canceled paid notices in a newspaper after it printed a story that was critical of him (Navarro vs. Review Publications, 91-1235). A federal judge imposed the judgment against Sheriff Nicholas Navarro of Broward County, Fla., for the “retaliatory” action against the Broward Review.

--Refused to hear an appeal by lawyers for Penthouse magazine, who claimed that former U.S. Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III and his anti-pornography commission had sought to suppress the magazine (Penthouse vs. Meese, 91-1040). Officials of both Penthouse and Playboy complained when Meese’s commission suggested that the owners of the 7-Eleven convenience stores stop selling the magazines.

But a federal judge refused to impose damages. Officials may not use the “coercive power of the state” against a magazine, but they certainly have a right to criticize it, the judge said.

* MIDLER RULING: The court upheld a $400,000 award to Bette Midler from an agency that imitated her voice in a commercial. F1