Whether a law is 'neutral' and 'generally applicable' under Employment Division v. Smith where it exempts certain religious organizations based on narrow and subjective religious criteria, and whether such laws are subject to strict scrutiny or should Smith be overruled

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2017, New York promulgated a regulation mandating that employer health insurance plans cover abortions. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 11, § 52.16(0). The regulation narrowly exempts certain religious organizations: tax-exempt entities that have the “purpose” of “inculcat[ing] ... religious values” and that primarily “employ[]” and “serve[]” those of the same religious persuasion. Id. § 52.2(y). But religious organizations with broader religious missions, such as serving the poor, must cover abortions in their health plans. So too must religious organizations that employ or serve members of other faiths or no faith at all. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a law is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under Employment Division v. Smith where it exempts certain religious organizations—but not others—based on narrow and subjective religious criteria unrelated to the law’s purpose, as New York and California hold, or whether such laws are subject to strict scrutiny under Smith, as the Second, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits hold. 2. If the First Amendment permits such discrimination among religious organizations under the rule announced in Smith, should Smith be overruled?