State v. Miller
1996 Wisc. LEXIS 77, 549 N.W.2d 235, 202 Wis. 2d 56 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Wisconsin Constitution's freedom of conscience clause, a neutral and generally applicable law that substantially burdens a sincerely held religious belief is unconstitutional as applied unless the state can prove the law is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest.
Facts:
- Miller and seven other individuals are members of the Old Order Amish faith.
- Their religious convictions forbid them from displaying the state-mandated slow-moving vehicle (SMV) emblem, which they consider a "worldly symbol" with colors that are too "loud and bright."
- The Amish believe that placing faith in a human symbol over God is a violation of their religious principles.
- They operated their horse-drawn buggies on public roads without the required SMV emblem.
- As an alternative safety measure, the Amish equipped their buggies with white reflective tape outlining the rear perimeter and a red lantern for use at night and in inclement weather.
- Between January and June of 1993, each of the eight individuals received a citation for violating the statute requiring the SMV emblem.
Procedural Posture:
- Miller and seven other Amish individuals were issued traffic citations for failing to display an SMV emblem.
- In the Circuit Court for Clark County, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the citations, which were joined into a single case.
- After a trial, the circuit court denied the motion, finding that while the defendants' beliefs were sincere and burdened, the state's compelling interest in traffic safety was not met by their proposed alternative.
- The defendants (now appellants) appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, holding the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish because the State failed to prove the SMV symbol was the least restrictive alternative.
- The State of Wisconsin sought review from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wisconsin Statute § 347.245, which requires slow-moving vehicles to display a specific fluorescent emblem, violate the freedom of conscience guaranteed by Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution as applied to members of the Old Order Amish faith whose religious beliefs prohibit displaying such symbols?
Opinions:
Majority - Geske, J.
Yes. Wisconsin Statute § 347.245, as applied to the Amish respondents, violates the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution. The court holds that the Wisconsin Constitution provides an independent and more protective basis for religious freedom claims than the U.S. Constitution. Applying the compelling state interest/least restrictive alternative test, the court acknowledges the state's compelling interest in highway safety. However, the state failed to meet its burden of proving that the mandatory SMV emblem is the least restrictive means to achieve that safety. The respondents presented expert testimony that their alternative—white reflective tape and a red lantern—was a viable and possibly superior method for visibility, and the state offered no concrete evidence to prove its method was safer or that the proposed alternative was inadequate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of independent state constitutionalism, affirming that the Wisconsin Constitution can provide broader protections for individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. By retaining the compelling state interest test for free conscience claims after the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned it for most federal free exercise claims in Employment Div. v. Smith, the Wisconsin Supreme Court established a higher standard of review for neutral, generally applicable laws that burden religious practice. This precedent ensures that religious minorities in Wisconsin have a stronger basis to challenge such laws, requiring the state to justify any infringement with proof that no less restrictive alternative exists.
