Employment Division v. Smith

Definition

Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1990 that addressed the balance between religious freedom and the government's ability to enforce laws that may affect religious practices. The ruling determined that states could deny unemployment benefits to individuals who were fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes, establishing that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

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 drug considered illegal under Oregon law, during a Native American religious ceremony.
2. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Employment Division, stating that Oregon's drug law was constitutional and did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
3. The decision clarified that individuals cannot claim exemptions from generally applicable laws based solely on religious beliefs.
4. The ruling led to significant public debate about the limits of religious freedom and government authority over personal conduct.
5. In response to concerns raised by this case, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 to provide greater protections for religious practices.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith impact the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause?
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith shifted the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause by establishing that neutral laws that are generally applicable do not need to accommodate religious practices. This meant that individuals could not receive exemptions from these laws simply based on their religious beliefs. As a result, this case limited the scope of religious freedom protections, leading to greater scrutiny over claims of religious exemption.
• Discuss how Employment Division v. Smith influenced the subsequent enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
  • The ruling in Employment Division v. Smith raised significant concerns regarding the protection of religious freedoms under U.S. law. In response to these concerns, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, aiming to restore stronger protections for individuals' rights to practice their religion without government interference. RFRA sought to ensure that any law that substantially burdens religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means available, thereby counteracting the effects of the Smith decision.
• Evaluate the broader implications of Employment Division v. Smith on future court cases regarding religious liberties and government regulation.
  • Employment Division v. Smith has had lasting implications on how courts evaluate cases involving religious liberties in relation to government regulation. The decision established a precedent that neutral and generally applicable laws can be enforced even if they incidentally burden religious practices, shifting the balance of power towards governmental interests over individual freedoms. This has led to further legal challenges and debates around how far governments can go in regulating behavior without infringing upon fundamental rights, creating a complex landscape for future cases addressing the intersection of religion and law.

Related terms

Free Exercise Clause:

A section of the First Amendment that protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely without government interference.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A federal law enacted in 1993 aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion, effectively reversing the Employment Division v. Smith decision.

Neutral Laws: Laws that are applied equally to everyone, regardless of religion, and do not specifically target any religious practice.