<P> Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction . Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on the application of the Free Exercise Clause . Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion - related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation . </P> <P> The history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention, then taking on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause, growing into a much broader view in the 1960s, and later again receding . </P> <P> The first case to closely examine the scope of the Free Exercise Clause was Reynolds v. United States in 1878 . A case dealing with the prosecution of a polygamist under federal law, and the defendant's claim of protection under the Free Exercise Clause, the Court sustained the law and the government's prosecution . The Court read the Free Exercise Clause as protecting religious practices, but that didn't protect Reynolds' practices which were crimes . This case, which also revived Thomas Jefferson's statement regarding the "wall of separation" between church and state, introduced the position that although religious exercise is generally protected under the First Amendment, this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices . </P> <P> This interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause continued into the 1960s and the ascendancy of the Warren Court under chief justice Earl Warren . Applying a new standard of "strict scrutiny" in various areas of civil rights law, the Court began to apply this standard to the First Amendment religion clauses as well, reading the Free Exercise Clause to require accommodation of religious conduct except where a state could show a compelling interest and no less burdensome means to achieve that end . One example was Sherbert v. Verner, where the Court overturned the state Employment Security Commission's decision to deny unemployment benefits to a practicing member of the Seventh - day Adventist Church who was forced out of a job after her employer adopted a 6 - day work week, which would have required her to work on Saturdays against the dictates of her religion . As Justice William Brennan stated for the majority, "to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties ." This test was used through the years of the Burger Court, including particularly in the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). </P>

In what ways are a person's actions under the free exercise clause limited