Fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice and may it please theourt, the court below made a simple error. They failed to understand where emplment division versus sth controls and where it doesnt. Ith doesnt control when the government uses the system of individualized exemptions. Orem when it makes other exceptions that underminets rules or when it changes the rules to phibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all threefe those errors here and the city still cant identify a neutral genelly applicable law even ter six attempts and in our knowledge is its decisions are subjective and individualized. The courts belowtill apply to smith and even said smith would be a dea letter if petitioners prevailed a that demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has csed. Respondents rather than defendansmith asked the court for a newly minted nstitutional standard that is even less protective of religious exercise and that approa has no basis in the text, history
Attention to where the court is sitting god save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments this morning case number 19123 fulton versus city of philadelphia. Mr. Chief justice and mia please the court, and failing to understand where the controls and where it doesnt smith it doesnt control when the government uses a system ofndividualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptns to undermine the rule or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice philadelphia made all three of those errors here. U can identify and apicable law even after six tempts and our kwledge is the decisions are subjective d individualized. The courts bel said smith would be a dead letter if petitioners prevailed and respondents asked the cou for a newly minted constitutional standard that approach has no basis in the traditions of the free exercise clause. The city has no compelling reason that is exercised by harris children in philadelphia for two centuries nor does it
Fulton versus city of philadelphia. The honorable chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oye, oye, oye. All persons having business honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to get their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. Roberts we will hear argument this morning in case number 19120 three, fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. The courts below made a civil error. They fail to understand where smith controls and where does not. Smith does not control where a government uses individual exemptions or makes other exceptions that undermine rules or when it changes rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three errors here. The city cannot identify a neutral, generally applicable law after six attempt. Attempts. It now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the cou
Couples. The Supreme Court has until june of next year, to issue a ruling in the case. Fulton versus city of philadelphia. The honorable, chief justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oye, oye. All persons having business before the honorable, Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to get their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and its honorable court. We will hear argument this morning in case number 19120 three, fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the courts below made a civil error. They failed to understand where a simple error. Date fail to understand where smith controls and where does not. Aith does not control where government uses individual exemptions or makes other exceptions that undermine rules or when it changes rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three errors here. The city cannot identify a neutral, generall
Morning and case number 19123, fulton v. The city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. The courts below made a simple error. They failed to understand where Employment Division versus smith controls and what doesnt. Smith doesnt control when the government uses a system of individualized exemptions or when it makes other exceptions that undermined its rules or when it changes the rules to prohibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all three of those errors here. The city still cant identify a neutral, generally applicable attempts. Fter six it now acknowledges its decisions are subjective and individualized. Yet the courts below still applied smith. Even set Smith Wouldve be a dead letter if petitioners prevail. That. That demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has caused. Respondents, rather than defend smith, asked the court for new limited constitutional standard thats even less protective of religious exercise. That approach