Yeah, it would break the First Amendment big time.
Sacrifice of any kind may be a touchy subject, but when a religious group believes it to be just,
they aren't really doing too much wrong. It's how they were taught and how they believe.
People kill animals all the time. True, to get food and other essentials is more justifiable in my book...but one should
not be judged by what they consider pretty much written in stone.

If the Supreme Court said it was protected under the First Amendment, then that's the case. It's not a violation of the First Amendment. Personally, I think it's an outdated practice, but hey. Different people have different opinions on things. That's what makes the world cool.

If I was a Supreme Court Justice in the ruling, however, I would rule in favor of it, so long as it is not a cruel punishment to the animal. A slice of the neck should be all it takes to kill it. The reason for that is that animals are not guaranteed the same rights as humans, and we are guaranteed the rights of our Constitution so long as it does not violate the rights of others. They're not making human sacrifices (thus violating the right to life), so I can see no scenario where it is a violation of the Constitution. This is a matter of separating my own personal opinions from the job. If a judge or a Justice does his or her job correctly, then personal opinion will be outweighed by the rule of law.

Yes I do. Animal sacrifice is a way of showing your religion, so they can not take that away. Look at the sentance before this one for the answer too 2. 

Even if we love animals(to eat)... we should not kill them all the time that´s how they extinct we should be more careful like reduce the ammount of animal kills per year that could help

1.Yes because sacrificing animals could be part of a religion which would be in some kind of ritual or something.
2.No because in the first admendment it clearly states a freedom of religion.