You are to read and review the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990). This case is listed below for your convenience.
After reading the case, you will need to write a 300-word essay on the case– be sure to use your own words, and don’t simply copy what’s in the case. This essay must answer each of the following questions, with points awarded as indicated:
- What is the case about (summarized in your own words)? (0-1 points)
- What is Employment Division’s argument? (0-1 points)
- What is Smith’s argument? (0-1 points)
- What does the Court decide, and why? What was the vote? Who wrote a dissenting opinion? (0-1 points)
- In your opinion, was justice served or not? Explain, using two major concepts from class.(0-2 points)
- If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in this case, why would the Supreme Court make the same ruling (0-2 points)?
- If there were 80 million members of the Native American religion discussed in the case, why would the Supreme Court make a different ruling (0-2 points)
Respondents Smith and Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related “misconduct.” Holding that the denials violated respondents’ First Amendment free exercise rights, the State Court of Appeals reversed. The State Supreme Court affirmed, but this Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination whether sacramental peyote use is proscribed by the State’s controlled substance law, which makes it a felony to knowingly or intentionally possess the drug. Pending that determination, the Court refused to decide whether such use is protected by the Constitution. On remand, the State Supreme Court held that sacramental peyote use violated, and was not excepted from, the state law prohibition, but concluded that that prohibition was invalid under the Free Exercise Clause.
Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Pp. 876-890 .
(a) Although a State would be “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional [p*873] protections. See, e.g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 304-307 ; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205. Pp. 876-882 .
(b) Respondents’ claim for a religious exemption from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 402-403 , whereby governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” That test was developed in a context — unemployment compensation eligibility rules — that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by “compelling governmental interest” on the basis of religious belief. Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is “central” to the individual’s religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699. Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required. Pp. 882-890 .