Case Problem:
Members of the Old Order Groffdale Conference Mennonite Church have traditionally used horses and buggies for transportation. They began using tractors about 40 years ago, especially for hauling their agricultural products to market. To ensure that the tractors are not used to displace horses and buggies, the Order requires steel cleats that slow the speed of the tractors to be attached to the wheels of all tractors driven by church members. To minimize damage to the road from these cleats, the Order made them larger and mounted them on rubber belts, but in 2009, after determining that the cleats were damaging newly resurfaced roads, Mitchell County passed an ordinance providing that, “No tire on a vehicle moved on a highway is allowed to have any block, stud, flange, cleat or spike or any other protuberances of any material other than rubber.” Zimmerman, a Mennonite, continued to operate his tractor on the road with the steel cleats attached to the tires and was cited for violating the ordinance. Zimmerman filed a motion to dismiss the charges on grounds that the law violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, and the trial court denied his motion. How do you think the state’s supreme court should have decided the appeal, and why? [ Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 NW 2d 1 (2012).]
Your answer must be, typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.