Employment Division v. Smith was a landmark case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1990. The case dealt with the question of whether religious belief was sufficient justification for breaking a law that did not specifically target religion. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that religious beliefs could not be used as justification for violating a neutral and generally applicable law.
The case centered around two Native American men who were employees of a drug rehabilitation center in Oregon. They were fired for testing positive for the drug peyote, which they had consumed as part of their religious practice. The men applied for unemployment benefits but were denied by the Oregon Employment Division because they had been fired for cause.
The two men challenged the decision, arguing that their religious beliefs should exempt them from the drug testing requirements. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which was tasked with deciding whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment would protect the men’s use of peyote as part of their religious practice.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Free Exercise Clause did not provide protection for illegal activities committed as part of religious practices. The ruling declared that the government could enforce neutral and generally applicable laws even if their enforcement impinged on religious beliefs.
The decision in Employment Division v. Smith was a major departure from the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on the Free Exercise Clause. In the past, the Court had provided significant protection for religious practices, even in cases where it conflicted with otherwise applicable laws. However, this case created a higher standard for religious exemptions to laws, requiring that the laws be specifically targeted at religion for such exemptions to be justified.
The ruling in Employment Division v. Smith had far-reaching implications for religious freedom and the relationship between religion and the law. It marked a significant shift towards a more secular interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of the law. The case also highlighted the ongoing tension between religious beliefs and the government’s responsibility to uniformly enforce neutral laws.
In conclusion, Employment Division v. Smith was a major decision that transformed the way the Supreme Court approached the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The case affirmed the power of the state to enforce neutral laws, even if their enforcement impacted religious practices. It remains an essential part of the ongoing discussions on the meaning of religious freedom and its implications in American society.
The Supreme Court case of Employment Division v. Smith was one that proved to be complex in its nature, for it had various concepts that had to be addressed in order to render a decision. Once again, the Supreme Court would be dealing with the application of First Amendment rights.
In the Employment Division v. Smith, the specific matter at hand was whether or not an employer could deny unemployment benefits to a person that was fired for the use of a controlled substance (See Also: Controlled Substances) for religious reasons.
Furthermore, the Court had to determine if such practice could be found to be in direct violation of First Amendment rights. The Employment Division v. Smith case specifically dealt with employees that were members of the Native American Church, which normally practices the ingesting of peyote as a religious ceremony.
These employees were fired on the basis of being found in possession of peyote, which is considered a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The grounds of possession was the main reason that these employees were denied unemployment benefits, which would cause the matter to be brought to the courts. The State courts of Oregon would eventually reverse the prohibition of unemployment benefits on the basis that the use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of religion. The State would appeal to the United States Supreme Court, still holding the argument that such denial was proper due to the possession and use of peyote being a crime.
The Supreme Court, upon examining the case, would return the matter back to Oregon courts. The reasoning was that the State would have to conclude on its own accord if the use of illegal drugs for religious reasons would be in violation of the State’s own drug statutes. Oregon State would find that even though the consumption of illegal drugs for religious reasons was considered illegal, such ruling would also violate the First Amendment.
However, the a key factor behind the Oregon law was that it was not implemented with the purpose of singling out the Native American practice of ingesting peyote for religious purposes, but rather it applied to all residents of the State. On this basis, the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding, would rule in favor of the State and not of Smith. It would be the first time that the Supreme Court would rule against a person citing freedom of religion violations in United States history.
The main reasoning behind the decision of the Supreme Court was that it was concluded that Smith and the other employees were using their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights as a way to circumvent applicable laws regarding the use of illicit drugs or controlled substances. Furthermore, the Court also stated that such a breach of the freedom of religion was not caused as a direct effect of law, but rather a circumstantial happenstance. These laws were also not directed to prohibit the free exercise of religion to any particular religious sect, but rather intended to apply to the general public.
For this the reason, the Supreme Court decided that no First Amendment violation had occurred. To further support the decision, the Supreme Court also cited that the exemption to permit the religious use of a drug, peyote in this particular case, is Constitutionally-permissible, but not Constitutionally-required. Even though this would prove to be the first time in which the freedom of religion clause was not upheld by the Supreme Court, it would not undermine the Constitutional provision.
However, it did provide for a more succinct relationship between that of religion and Government. Even though in this particular case, it may be deemed that the Government interfered with religious practice, it did so in a sense that was inadvertent and as a contingency to an issue over which the Government does have control, the use of illegal drugs.
