The Supreme Court of Canada announced on Thursday that it will hear a landmark challenge to Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21. The law was passed in 2019 and prohibits certain public sector employees in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols while on duty.

Central to the case are Sections 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2(a) provides for freedom of religion and section 15 enshrines equality rights. Bill 21 was passed by the Quebec government with the help of the notwithstanding clause under Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prevents a court from declaring that legislation covered by it is of no force or effect. Sections 2(a) and 15 of the Canadian Charter are both subject to the notwithstanding clause, allowing governments to temporarily override these rights for a period of five years (renewable indefinitely).

Bill 21 is rooted in Quebec’s commitment to secularism, and has been defended by the provincial government as a means to ensure the religious neutrality of the state, while critics have argued that the law disproportionately targets religious minorities. Further, it has been linked to similar laws in countries like France, Belgium and Switzerland by proponents.

In response to the latest, the Attorney General of Quebec, Simon Jolin-Barrette declared that his government “will fight to the end to defend the Act respecting the laicity of the State”. On the other hand, Harini Sivalingam, director of the equality program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said at a press conference in Ottawa that what is at stake is whether governments can “violate our rights and freedoms” without any judicial oversight. The World Sikh Organization welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, with president Danish Singh saying:

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to grant leave to appeal is an important opportunity to examine the historic and fundamental protections for religious minorities and the limits of the notwithstanding clause in a case where it has been weaponized to override fundamental freedoms and disproportionately target visible minorities.

This latest legal challenge comes after lower courts, including the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the law due to the government’s use of the notwithstanding clause. This also comes after Quebec premier François Legault announced in November that he is prepared to use the notwithstanding clause to require doctors trained in Quebec to practice in the province. Further, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had announced their intention to escalate the case to the Supreme Court of Canada after the Quebec Court of Appeal decision in March 2024. Additionally, a report noted a generational divide in attitudes towards Bill 21, with younger Quebecers expressing less support for the law. Similarly, this comes after it was noted that the law would have a disproportionate impact on women. This also comes after Supreme Court Justice Mahmud Jamal decided to recuse himself from hearing the case so that his participation does not become a distraction during the hearing.

The outcome of this case could potentially affect how governments at both the federal and provincial levels approach using the notwithstanding clause.