All of this, however, may simply be prelude to Fulton — the case provides the court with its cleanest opportunity yet to overturn that pesky peyote precedent. As Stanford Law School professor Michael W. McConnell has argued, Smith is inconsistent with the Framers’ deliberate linguistic choice to protect not merely worship, but the “free exercise” of religion, from government interference. And as my former boss, Judge James C. Ho, has pointed out, “Under Smith, government may regulate religious activity, without having to satisfy strict scrutiny, so long as the regulation is a ‘neutral law of general applicability.’” In other words, Smith makes it too easy for government to interfere with the right to live one’s religion.