Employment Division v. Smith

Definition

Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1990 that ruled that states can deny unemployment benefits to individuals fired for using illegal drugs for religious ceremonies. This case is significant as it addressed the balance between state interests and the free exercise of religion, impacting how religious practices are accommodated under the law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a prohibited substance, in a Native American Church ceremony.
2. The Supreme Court's ruling held that Oregon's law against the use of peyote did not violate the Free Exercise Clause, as it was a neutral law of general applicability.
3. The decision effectively weakened the protections previously afforded to religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause.
4. After this ruling, many states enacted their own versions of RFRA to restore protections for religious exercise against state laws.
5. The case highlighted tensions between individual religious practices and state laws, sparking ongoing debates about religious freedom in America.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith change the legal landscape for the free exercise of religion?
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith shifted the legal landscape by ruling that states can enforce neutral laws even if they incidentally restrict religious practices. This meant that individuals could be denied unemployment benefits if they were fired for violating a generally applicable law, like drug use, even if their actions were rooted in religious beliefs. The ruling diminished the level of protection offered to religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause.
• Discuss how Employment Division v. Smith relates to the concepts of state interests versus individual religious rights.
  • Employment Division v. Smith illustrates the conflict between state interests in enforcing drug laws and individuals' rights to practice their religion freely. The Court determined that a state's interest in maintaining a drug-free workplace outweighed individual claims of religious freedom when those claims conflicted with general laws. This case established a precedent where states can prioritize public policy over specific religious practices, shaping future legal discussions on the balance between these competing interests.
• Evaluate the implications of Employment Division v. Smith on subsequent legislation aimed at protecting religious freedoms, particularly regarding RFRA.
  • The implications of Employment Division v. Smith were significant, prompting responses such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which sought to restore heightened protections for religious exercise against governmental interference. RFRA aimed to ensure that any law imposing a substantial burden on religious practice must serve a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means available. This case and its aftermath sparked a broader dialogue about religious freedoms in America, influencing not just state legislation but also shaping how courts interpret the balance between individual rights and government interests.

Related terms

Free Exercise Clause: Part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely, without government interference.

Strict Scrutiny: A legal standard used by courts to evaluate laws that affect fundamental rights or suspect classifications, requiring a compelling state interest and narrow tailoring.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A 1993 federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion unless there is a compelling government interest.