No. In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ GEORGE Q. RICKS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF IDAHO CONTRACTORS BOARD, ET AL., Respondents. __________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE IDAHO COURT OF APPEALS __________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI __________ ERIC S. BAXTER Counsel of Record ERIC C. RASSBACH DANIEL H. BLOMBERG JOSEPH C. DAVIS THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 1200 New Hampshire Ave. NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0095 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Court should revisit its holding in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that the Free Exercise Clause generally requires no re- ligious exemptions from laws that are neutral and gen- erally applicable. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner George Q. Ricks was plaintiff in the Idaho District Court, plaintiff-appellant in the Idaho Court of Appeals, and petitioner in the Idaho Supreme Court. Respondents are the Idaho Contractors Board, the Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses, and the Attor- ney General for the State of Idaho, Lawrence G. Wasden. They were defendants in the Idaho District Court, defendants-respondents in the Idaho Court of Appeals, and respondents in the Idaho Supreme Court. iii RELATED PROCEEDING George Quinn Ricks v. Idaho State Board of Con- tractors, No. CV 14-7034, 1st Judicial District Court, Kootenai County, Idaho. Judgment entered on October 15, 2015. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ........................... ii RELATED PROCEEDING ........................................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... viii INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 6 JURISDICTION ......................................................... 6 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................. 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 7 A. Ricks’s religious beliefs .................................... 7 B. The State refuses to register Ricks ................. 7 C. The proceedings below ..................................... 9 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ..... 11 I. Smith was wrongly decided and stare decisis does not require adhering to it ......... 15 v A. Smith contradicts the text and historical meaning of the Free Exercise Clause ....................................... 15 B. Stare decisis does not pose an obstacle to revisiting Smith .................... 21 II. This case presents an ideal vehicle for revisiting Smith ............................................ 31 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 35 APPENDIX Order Denying Petition for Review, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. 45396- 2017 (Idaho S. Ct. Mar. 12, 2019) ....................... 1a Published Opinion, Ricks v. State of Idaho Con- tractors Board, No. 45396 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2018) ........................................................ 2a Memorandum Decision and Order Granting De- fendant’s Motion to Reconsider, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16- 5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Aug. 25, 2017) ...... 29a Notice of Appeal, Ricks v. State of Idaho Con- tractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Aug. 16, 2017) ................................... 32a Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Mo- tion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Con- tractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of vi the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, July 5, 2017) ..................................... 36a Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judi- cial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, June 8, 2017) ..................................................... 49a Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judi- cial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, May 1, 2017) ...................................................... 51a Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Reconsider, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judi- cial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Feb. 2, 2017) ...................................................... 55a Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judi- cial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Jan. 5, 2017) ...................................................... 58a Memorandum Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Mo- tion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Con- tractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Nov. 15, 2016) ................................... 62a Transcript of Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, vii No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judi- cial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Nov. 2, 2016) ...................................................... 75a Idaho Code § 54-5204 ............................................. 78a Idaho Code § 54-5210 ............................................. 79a Idaho Code § 73-122 ............................................... 81a 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(13) .............................................. 82a Proposed Second Amended Complaint, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16- 5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Feb. 10, 2017) ....... 84a Amended Civil Action for Violation of Constitu- tional and Statutory Rights, Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 16-5927 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Aug. 11, 2016) .................. 87a Certification of Agency Record on Appeal (relevant excerpts), Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, No. CV 14-7034 (Dist. Ct. of the First Judicial Dist. of Idaho, County of Kootenai, Nov. 3, 2014) ................... 98a viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) A.A. v. Needville Indep. Sch. Dist., 611 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2010) ................................ 28 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) .............................................. 21 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) .............................................. 26 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) .............................................. 25 Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) .......................................passim Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) .............................................. 25 Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985) .............................................. 10 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) ........................................ 11, 23 Chosen 300 Ministries, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 12-3159, 2012 WL 3235317 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2012) ......................................... 28 ix Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) .......................................passim City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) .......................................passim Combs v. Homer-Ctr. Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2008).................................. 23 Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005) .............................................. 29 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 600-03 (2008) ............................. 17, 21, 34 Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) .......................................passim Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944) .............................................. 34 Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019) .......................................... 26 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) .............................................. 26 Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) .............................................. 29 Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136 (1987) .............................................. 24 x Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) ................................ 13, 22, 30 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) ........................................ 20, 27 Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) ................................................ 25 Janus v. American Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) ...................................passim Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 139 S. Ct. 634 (2019) ...................................... 11, 13 Kissinger v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., Coll. of Veterinary Med., 5 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 1993) .................................... 24 Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647, 2019 WL 2552486 (June 21, 2019) ............................................... 22, 25 Leahy v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ...................... 14, 32 Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003).................................. 23 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) .......................................... 31 xi