How did Employment Division v. Smith change court review of government restrictions on religious practices?

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court fundamentally altered how courts review government restrictions on religious practices by rejecting the previously established Sherbert/Yoder test.1

Prior to this decision, the Court held that the free exercise of religion required the government to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws unless denying them was necessary to achieve a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means.1

In Smith, the Court held that the free exercise clause does not require legislatures to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws that do not specifically target religion. By reducing the level of scrutiny courts apply to such restrictions, the ruling shifted the burden away from the government to justify its laws against religious objections. This decision effectively established that while legislatures may choose to create religious exemptions through statutes, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the federal Constitution does not mandate them.123