Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 73-402 (2026)
Free exercise of religion protected.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Free exercise of religion protected.
(1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:
(a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest;
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(4) A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this chapter against a government shall recover attorney’s fees and costs.
(5) In this section, the term "substantially burden" is intended solely to ensure that this chapter is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Lewis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 146 P.3d 684 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
Lewis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 146 P.3d 684 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 73-402. Idaho Code Section 73-402 provides: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “Idaho Code Section 73-402 of the FERPA states, in full: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
Does v. Lawrence Wasden, 982 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2020). “FERPA, like its federal counterpart the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), provides that any law that substantially burdens the free exercise of religion must be in furtherance of a compelling government interest and must be the least restrictive means of furthering…”
Roles v. Townsend, 64 P.3d 338 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). “I.C. § 73-402. We conclude, based on the record before us, that the state has demonstrated beyond any genuine dispute that it has such compelling interests in eliminating tobacco in prisons, that the tobacco-free policy is essential to those interests, and that the policy is the…”
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd., 435 P.3d 1 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “(3) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both: (a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling…”
State v. Heath, 485 P.3d 1121 (Idaho 2021). “” I.C. § 73-402. However, the State argues that Heath waived his argument under FERPA because he did not raise it below.”
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004). “” Idaho Code § 73-402 (2). The district court dismissed this state law claim, holding that section 73-401 did not apply retroactively to the conduct alleged in Olsen’s complaint because the Act has no language indicating that the Idaho Legislature intended that it was to be…”
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd. (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both: (a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling…”
State v. Heath (Idaho 2021). “” I.C. § 73-402. However, the State argues that Heath waived his argument under FERPA because he did not raise it below.”
Pizzuto v. Tewalt (D. Idaho 2024). “, Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA), Idaho Code § 73-402 , and, pursuant to 42 U.”
Andrew Wolf v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr. (9th Cir. 2025). “§ 2000cc-1, and Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA), Idaho Code § 73-402 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
— Idaho Code § 73-402(1) — 1 case
Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “Idaho Code Section 73-402 of the FERPA states, in full: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Idaho Code § 73-402(3) — 2 cases
Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “Idaho Code Section 73-402 of the FERPA states, in full: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
Lewis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 146 P.3d 684 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 73-402. Idaho Code Section 73-402 provides: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Idaho Code § 73-402(3)(b) — 1 case
Lewis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 146 P.3d 684 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “See I.C. § 73-402. Idaho Code Section 73-402 provides: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Idaho Code § 73-402(4) — 1 case
Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “Idaho Code Section 73-402 of the FERPA states, in full: (1) Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state, even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Idaho Code § 73-402(5) — 2 cases
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd., 435 P.3d 1 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “(3) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both: (a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling…”
Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Bd. (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “(3) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both: (a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.