Cited by

d 393, 398 (Minn. 1990) (stating that “once a claimant has demonstrated a sincere religious belief .

2(b)(4) (1990)); State v. Russell , (Minn. Stat. § 152.023 (1990)); (Minn. Stat. § 169.522 (1990)); (Minn. Stat. § 573.01 (1980)).

See State v. Ambaye , (implicitly sanctioning the district court’s recognition of a compelling interest in “maintaining [a] record of violence”); State v. Hershberger , (“The interest in public safety is also fundament al, and serves as a rationale for the very formation of our state government.”).

at 863 (regard ing RLUIPA); (regarding the Minnesota Constitution).

See, 8-99 ( Minn. 1990); see also State v. Ambaye , (acknowledging that the public has a “compelling interest” in maintaining an individual’s record of violent offenses).

d 393, 397-98 (Minn. 1990); Minn. Const. art. I, § 16.

See State v. Hershberger , -98 (Minn. 1990).

7 “[S]ection 16 precludes even an infringement on or an interference with religious freedom.”

07) (holding that the “state has a compelling interest” in protecting “the citizens of Minnesota” from those who “pose a severe threat to the[ir] health and safety” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); (finding that the State has a “compelling interest in protecting the public from violent sexual assaults”); (finding that the strength of the State’s interests in protecting the public “cannot be disputed”).

“Religious liberty is a precious right.”

In other Minnesota cases we have recognized that the government has a compelling interest in ensuring safety on public roadways, “assuring parents provide primary support for their children,” Murphy, d at 82 , “ensuring] the peace and safety of labor relations,” and safeguarding employees’ rights to collectively organize, Hill-Murray, d at 866-67 .

The Freedom of Conscience Clause “precludes an infringement on or an interference with religious freedom and limits the permissible countervailing interests of the government.”

(display of slow-moving vehicle emblem on Amish defendant’s vehicle).

But Minn. Const, art. I, § 16 “precludes even an infringement on or an interference with religious freedom.” (emphasis omitted).

The language of the Minnesota Constitution regarding religion “is of a *261 distinctively stronger character than the federal counterpart” and precludes “even an infringement on or an interference with religious freedom.” (stating that the Minnesota Constitution expressly grants affirmative rights in the area of religious worship while the federal constitution simply attempts to restrain government action).

Article I, section 1 of the Minnesota Bill of Rights establishes, “Government is instituted for the security, (citation omitted).

This provision affords even greater protection for religious liberties than does the Federal Constitution by precluding only “infringement on or interfer *10 ence with religious freedom.”

522-23 (1961) (Minnesota’s due process standard may be developed independent of federal law); (declining to lower Minnesota’s standards for searches and seizures to federal level); (equal protection analysis under Minnesota law more stringent than federal law); -98 (Minn.1990) (greater religious liberties under state law than under federal law); -81 (Minn.1988) (12-member jury required under state but not federal law).

(concluding Minnesotans afforded greater protection for religious liberties under state constitution than under federal constitution); see generally Tracey Levy, Rediscovering Rights: State Courts Reconsider the Free Exercise Clauses of Their Own Constitutions in the Wake of Employment Division v. Smi

Safety, (right to counsel at the chemical testing stage of a DWI proceeding); (adopting stricter equal protection rational basis standard than federal courts); (religious liberties); (bodily integrity); (fundamental right of education); (right to 12-member jury) (subsequently overruled by constitutional amendment).